Introduction To Defence Ethics

INTRODUCTION TO DEFENCE ETHICS
2nd edition
STUDENT MANUAL
November 2005
Canada
Table of Contents 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
PREFACE 3
ABBREVIATIONS 5
INTRODUCTION 9
PART I: ETHICS AND THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM 13

A Look at Definition 14
A Democratic Nation and Ethics 15
Private/Public Distinction 17
Ethics for Defence 20
A Values Based Program
“Statement of Defence Ethics” for DND/CF
Duty with Honour: the Military Ethos
Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service
Defence Ethics and Compliance
PART II: ETHICAL DECISION MAKING 33

A Basic Decision Making Model 34
Judgement (Stage 2) 34
(1) General Assessment of the Situation
(2) Ethical Considerations
Systematic Approaches to Ethics
Ethical Dilemmas
(3) Options and Risks
(4) Choosing
Committing to Action (Stage 3) 42
“YaBut”
Three Levels of Ethical Obligations
The DEP Ethical Decision Making Model 45
PART III: CONCLUDING REMARKS 49

Ethics Check 50
Voicing Ethical Concerns 51
ANNEXES
Annex A A Method for Case Studies 53
Annex B Cases 59
Annex C Glossary 63
Annex D Bibliography 73
Annex E Contacts 77
Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Preface 3
Preface to 2nd Edition
The mandate of the Defence Ethics Program includes a significant role for ethics
training. A primary concern of the DEP is to foster the conditions that are conducive to
developing and maintaining a healthy ethical culture in Defence. The Introduction to the
Defence Ethics course represents an important and necessary contribution to fulfilling
both requirements.
The Introduction to the Defence Ethics (2nd edit) course was developed by the
Defence Ethics Program (DEP) under the authority of the DEP Program Authority, the
Chief of Review Services. It is a Program Authority course designed for personnel who
require a basic and introductory level of knowledge of ethics as it applies to the
Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. If the course content is used
to satisfy training requirements identified in the Ethics Plans of Environmental
Commanders or NDHQ Group Principals, either in the National Capital Region (NCR) or
in other regions, some tailoring of the content may be necessary. Participants should be
advised accordingly.
The original content of the course was the result of a joint effort between DEP and
the Director Recruiting, Education and Training. It was developed by Mrs. D. Dolan, a
training development expert and Major D. Beauchamp (PhD), DEP Research and
Development. The contents were developed in accordance with the general principles of
the Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES).
This manual contains all the material to be covered in an Introduction to Defence
Ethics (2nd edition) one-day course. It also contains in the Annexes supplementary
information on ethics, decision making, and the Defence Ethics Program. A Glossary has
been added to the 2nd edition to provide participants with an explanation and a
clarification of key concepts. The 2nd edition of the course manual was produced by the
DEP Research and Development Section under the direction of Major D. Beauchamp
(PhD).
Delivery of the Introduction to the Defence Ethics (2nd edit) course in the National
Capital Region tends to be done under contract. In today’s environment, contracting for
instructor services rather than using DND or CF instructional resources is a fiscal and
human resources necessity. It is recognized and accepted that instructors will differ in
instructional styles and in what they believe should be stressed and not stressed. The
instructor for the course in the National Capital Region is expected to present at a
minimum all the essential material of the course and to select from the supplementary
information what contributes to the specific needs of the particular group being
instructed. The minimum essential material is identified as follows:
(1) All material contained in the figures throughout the text;

(2) Essential parts of the text have been highlighted in bold script; and
(3) A reasonable presentation of the meaning of all titles, subtitles and text
highlighted in bold script (excluding the Annexes) based on the material found
in the manual.

Preface 4
Although the instructor is free to use or not use the PowerPoint slides for all the figures in
the manual provided as a teaching aid, he or she must ensure that the concepts contained
in the figures are covered in class.
If participants observe what they consider to be important omissions in the

delivery of the course material, they should note these omissions on the Course
Evaluation Sheet provided at the end of every course. However, if they feel that the
Course Evaluation Sheet is not sufficient for reporting their concerns, they are asked to
send their comments directly to the Director Defence Ethics Program.
The manual is intended to serve both for in-class use and as a reference document.
It provides a list of contacts in the Defence Ethics Program, which includes personnel in
the Program Management Section administering the Conflict of Interest and Post
Employment measures. The manual also suggests further readings in a selected
bibliography. In summary, participants can expect to find in this manual all of the
material required for the course and a useful source of information for the future.
Queries or comments on the in-course material, course delivery or course manual

can be directed to the Defence Ethics Program - Research and Development Section,
Chief of Review Services, NDHQ - Tel. (613) 992-7451; Fax (613) 992-5763.
Figure-1
DEP Web Site
www.dnd.ca/ethics

Abbreviations 5
ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations 6
ABBREVIATIONS
This following contains a list of the abbreviations that appear in the text, including a short
description of their meaning.
CF - Canadian Forces - The armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and
consisting of one Service called the Canadian Forces. The CF operates as an institutional
entity separate from the Department of National Defence, in a relationship described in
the National Defence Act (NDA), and must work effectively with public servants as an
integral part of a single defence team. The Constitution Act of 1867 provides for
establishing armed forces at the federal level. Their command, control and administration
are set out in the NDA, and the Government of Canada determines their mandate, mission
and roles in the defence of Canada through legislation and Cabinet direction.
CFITES - Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System - The

Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES) is modelled after
the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) that is the process used by Instructional System
Design (ISD). ISD or SAT is concerned with the identification of training requirements
based on the analysis of job performance requirements obtained from experts in the job to
be performed.
DAOD - Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - Defence Administrative

Orders and Directives (DAODs) are the documents that spell out corporate administrative
policies and instructions that are specific to the DND and CF. DAODs supplement higher
level direction such as Acts of the Parliament of Canada and Queen's Regulations and
Orders (QR&Os). They may also supplement directives from Treasury Board and/or
other central agencies. As Orders, they apply to CF members and, as Directives, they
apply to DND employees.
DEP - Defence Ethics Program - The DEP is a values-based program that aims to foster
the understanding, acceptance, and practice of ethical principles taking into consideration
the unique circumstances and requirements of the DND and the CF. A values-based
approach in the public sphere places importance on the core ethical values and principles
intrinsic to an organization, including respect for the law, and uses them as a guide for
professional conduct, rather than merely focusing on compliance with rules.
The DEP provides a visible and expressed ethical focus for the DND and the CF. The
DEP has concentrated its efforts on ensuring ethical decision-making according to the
highest standards and on maintaining the ethical integrity of the DND and its employees
and of the CF and its members.
DND - Department of National Defence - In the National Defence Act, Section 3

creates DND as a "department of the Government of Canada over which the Minister of
National Defence appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside." Section 4
of the Act sets out the duties of the Minister as follows: "to manage and direct the
Canadian Forces and all matters relating to national defence," having specific
responsibility for: "the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and

Abbreviations 7
works for the defence of Canada; and "research relating to the defence of Canada and to
the development of and improvements in materiel." DND exists to carry out the work
assigned to the Minister of National Defence, so the department's relationship with the
CF is that of a support system.
LCC - Learning and Career Centre - The LCC provides information and services
concerning learning and career development. Their objective is to foster the promotion of
continuous learning within DND through the provision of learning advisory, career
development and training services to all DND civilian employees and military personnel.
The LCC offers many personalized and group services as well as programs that meet
individual training and career needs.
MSE Ops - Mobile Support Equipment Operators - MSE Ops are identified as
professional drivers that operate a diversity of vehicle types and equipment, and must
undergo extensive and a high level of training to obtain their driving and operating
qualifications. Transportation as a component of Logistics is a support function
embracing the planning and implementation of the movement of forces, personnel, and
materiel (stores). MSE in DND fulfills three main roles, which include operational
mobility, operational support and administrative support.
NDHQ - National Defence Headquarters - The emplacement where the offices of the
Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and his staff, are located.
National Defence Headquarters is located at 101 Colonel By Drive in Ottawa, Ontario.
PER - Personnel Evaluation Report - A Personnel Evaluation Report is a report that is

given to a civilian employee by his or her supervisor every year for the purposes of
evaluating the employee and providing feedback.
PO - Performance Objective - Performance Objectives are statements that specify what

a person undergoing training must be able to do in terms of observable performance. A
PO also includes the conditions that influence job performance and the standard against
which that performance is measured.
QR&O - Queens Regulations and Orders - The Governor in Council, the Treasury
Board, the Minister of National Defence ("the Minister") and the Chief of the Defence
Staff all have the power to make regulations or orders governing the CF, their activities
and operations, or certain aspects thereof. The most important subordinate laws with
respect to the military justice system are the provisions contained in Volume 2 of the
Queen’s Regulations & Orders for the Canadian Forces ("QR&O"). The QR&O
significantly amplify and expand upon topics and provisions found in the National
Defence Act.
TSD - Technical Services Detachment - Their mission is to provide Technical Services

support to the CF and DND units and personnel throughout the National Capital Region
and to other specified units in support of their operations and activities.

Abbreviations 8
UEC - Unit Ethics Coordinator - Unit Ethics Coordinators are located in each Level 1
organization. They are responsible for executing the Ethics Plan of their Level 1
Advisors as it applies to their unit. Level 1 organizations have Level 1 Ethics
Coordinators who are responsible to their Level 1 Advisors (Commanders of Commands
and Group Principals) for providing guidance, direction and input on DEP
implementation; providing advice to personnel within their organization on ethical issues;
monitoring and reporting on the accomplishment of program objectives within their
organization; working closely with public affairs officers to incorporate ethics material in
internal communications, including the dissemination of information on ethics policies,
issues and trends; and ensuring the incorporation of an ethics component into business
plans, training, orientation and educational programs. Level 1 Ethics Coordinators are
participating members of the DEP Ethics Advisory Board and have direct access to their
respective Level 1 Advisor to provide oversight, advice and implementation support.

Introduction 9
INTRODUCTION

Introduction 10
Aim
The aim of this course is to gain knowledge of the complexities of Defence ethics
and its application. To that end, the course covers the meaning of ethics in government
and in Defence; it examines what that implies for the Canadian Forces and its members
and the Department of National Defence and its employees. It does not presuppose any
prior knowledge or study of ethics. However, it is recognized that for some, the course
may represent an opportunity to do a review of his or her understanding of what’s
involved in ethics in the public sphere – a periodic review of ethics is recommended -
while at the same time gaining new knowledge concerning his or her role in a Defence
environment.
Purpose
A primary purpose of the course is to contribute to the ethical behaviour of
Defence personnel in the accomplishment of their responsibilities. Ethical behaviour is
greatly influenced by how each of us answers the question: What’s the right thing to do?
By exploring different ways that this question can be answered, CF members and DND
employees can improve the effectiveness of their efforts to do the right thing. An
important part of this process is gaining a better understanding of Defence ethics and of
the high ethical standards expected of Defence personnel. Additionally, the course will
make personnel aware of some of the factors allowing leadership at all levels of the
organization to contribute to a healthy ethical climate in the CF and DND.
An indirect purpose of the course is to assist CF and DND personnel in answering
the question: What kind of persons should Canadian Defence personnel be? As research
shows, the answer to this question is necessarily linked to the answers provided to the
question: What’s the right thing to do?
Remarks
Understanding the implications of the answers to the question, “What’s the right
thing to do?” is one of the main themes running through the course. Although the
question focuses on doing, to answer the question requires us to work back through the
ethical decision making process to the ethical values at work in the doing. Thus, our first
task will be to identify in general terms what we mean by ethics in Defence. Because
ethics does not exist in a vacuum, its practice for Canadian Defence personnel must be
seen in the context of Canada. As a democracy, we are a nation that possesses a deep
respect for human rights and freedoms. We are a nation that has placed ethics at the heart
of its democratic ideals and it should not be surprising that ethics is essential to
formulating the fundamental principles of our democratic society.
The practice of ethics in our democracy requires us to draw a reasonable
distinction between our private lives and our life within the public domain. Accordingly,
the ethical principles and obligations outlined in the Statement of Defence Ethics, in Duty
with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada, as well as in the Values and Ethics
Code for the Public Service affect personnel primarily in their roles related to the public
sphere. The exercise of discretionary judgement by personnel working in the public

Introduction 11
sphere is inevitable today. In gaining a good understanding of how the decision making
process works, we can enhance our ability to exercise our judgement rationally, fairly,
and courageously, while fully respecting our wider commitments to humanity. The course
also stresses that nothing happens until someone takes action. As a result, participants
will discuss some of the challenges that we all face when we want to move from a
rationally determined “best” decision to the action that should follow from that decision.
Finally, they will consider some of the factors allowing leadership at all levels of the
organization to create an ethical climate that makes it easier for personnel to act on their
answer to the question “What’s the right thing to do? ”
Course Objectives
At the end of the course, it is expected that a participant will:
- Know the main ideas involved in ethics as it applies to Defence;

- Know the Statement of Defence Ethics and its content;
- Be able to explain its relationship to the military ethos and the Values and Ethics Code
for the Public Service;
- Know and apply a basic model of ethical decision-making;
- Know some of the general conceptions used to justify ethical decisions;
- Know different types of ethical dilemmas;
- Explain what is entailed in moving from decision to action;
- Know means of contributing to a healthy ethical climate; and
- Enhance decision making capacities by practicing ethical decision making
Course Management
The course has been designed to meet the needs of Defence personnel (Regular
Force, Reserve Force, and civilians) and is meant to provide them with the opportunity to
learn about the Defence Ethics Program (DEP) and to help them make ethical decisions.
The practice of Ethics in the public sphere requires an understanding of basic ethical
concepts. To the extent possible, these concepts are best learned through dialogue and
discussion. Consequently, the instructional method used in this course relies on guided
discussions and some case study exercises supported by the instructor’s presentation of
important Defence ethics concepts.
As participants, it is expected that you will actively participate in guided

discussions and case study exercises by:
a. Sharing your agreement or disagreement with the syndicate / class; and
b. Expressing and constructively challenging alternative points of view.

REMEMBER
Challenge the idea, not the person.

Introduction 12

Ethics and the Defence Ethics Program 13
PART I
ETHICS
AND
THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM

A LOOK AT DEFINITION
Providing a definition of ethics in the public sphere that would be acceptable to

most professionals in the field continues to be an elusive goal. One source of the
difficulty in defining ethics is partly because there are many in our society who believe
that ethics is strongly linked to morality and that morality is ultimately a matter of
personal religious belief. However, in a democratic society, no one religion and its set of
beliefs can be imposed on other members of society. In fact, there are a multiplicity of
religious belief systems practiced in our democratic society and their adherents must
respect the demands of democracy and the constraints it imposes on them when they act
in their capacity of citizens. Thus, the meaning of the term ethics should be seen as
overlapping only partly with the traditional meaning of the term morality, a term that will
continue to carry the weight of religious belief systems.
The problem of defining ethics in the public sphere is also partly the result of a
traditional academic distinction between ethics and morality, where ethics is restricted to
a “study of” what is right and wrong and morality deals with “standards” and “codes of
behaviours”. However, today, the literature in academia and outside academia is
redrawing the boundaries between ethics and morality. In this workshop, the two terms
may at times be used interchangeably, although when a distinction is necessary to avoid
confusion, the term ethics will be preferred when referring to any aspect of an
individual’s role in the public sphere and the term morality will be favoured when
referring to zones protected in the private sphere.
In addition, the task of defining applied and practical ethics adds a layer of
complexity to the attempt to define ethics. In an academic environment the justification
and the in-depth study of traditional and contemporary ethical theories receives priority.
In the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence our primary focus
is the applied and practical aspects of ethics in the public sphere. The requirement to
be applied and practical necessarily dictates what should be studied and what concepts
should be stressed.
Taking these points into consideration, the Defence Ethics Program

“defines” ethics as being concerned with:
a. Establishing the principles and obligations that govern the right

actions and practices of institutions and individuals in society,
b. Determining right and wrong, and
c. Choosing to do what is right.
This definition invites further clarification. Both the ideas of principles and
obligations in this definition of ethics are related to the idea of value. Generally
speaking, a value is an enduring belief about what is important in life. Values can be
instruments to accomplish ends and goals (instrumental values) or intrinsic to the
important ends and goals of life (intrinsic values). A principle is a fundamental value
that reflects a recognizable pattern of attitudes and behaviours that has a fairly large

scope and is generally valued by individuals, societies, and humanity. In addition, a

principle contains within itself an imperative to act in a manner consistent with a
fundamental value. An example of a fundamental principle is the first principle in the
Statement of Defence Ethics: “Respect the dignity of all persons.”
Many of the common fundamental values that we are familiar with are more
narrow in scope than principles and do not contain within themselves an imperative to act
in a certain manner. For example, the value ‘honesty’ describes a fairly recognizable
pattern of attitudes and behaviours that is generally valued and is rightfully considered a
fundamental value. The value ‘honesty’ becomes an obligation that carries with it an
imperative to act in a certain manner when it is contained within a larger commitment.
Thus, all individuals who become government personnel are committed thereby to the
obligations that are related to the public role that they assume. As a result, all
government personnel accept an obligation to practice the fundamental value of honesty
by assuming their public role. The obligation to practice honesty is one of the six basic
obligations of military and civilian personnel contained in the Statement of Defence
Ethics. As can be seen, obligations are different from principles and fundamental values
but necessarily rooted in them.
To grasp what is involved in our definition of ethics, it may be helpful to imagine

a cultural ecosystem where every action in a society is part of a large system of
interdependent actions. It operates in a manner similar to an ecosystem, where any action
or lack of action has repercussions throughout the ecosystem. In a cultural ecosystem,
any action or lack of action by individuals or institutions would directly or indirectly
affect human beings. According to our definition of ethics , this state of affairs would
necessarily involve ethics to some degree. Visualising ethics as working within a cultural
ecosystem can helps us understand how the Somalia and the Airborne Regiment incidents
involving the Canadian Forces in the mid-1990s could have had such a strong and
negative effect both within and outside the Defence community in Canada. Conversely,
if we imagine ethics as being exercised within a cultural ecosystem, then a renewal of
ethics in government will have a correspondingly positive effect on the Defence
community. To the extent that the Defence Ethics Program’s definition of ethics
adequately reflects the general meaning of ethics in our democratic society, it has far
reaching consequences for the role and the application of ethics in the public sphere.
A DEMOCRATIC NATION AND ETHICS
Canada is a democracy that treats the respect for human rights and freedoms as
fundamental to its way of life. As Canadians, we are committed to societal, cultural and
political principles and obligations entailed by this way of life. They are expressed in
what we do and in the justifications we provide for our actions and practices. The
relative peace and stability that we enjoy in Canada is a tribute to the existence of such
fundamental values. Many of these fundamental values are ethical values. The defining
characteristics of our democracy produce a societal, cultural and political environment
that supports and nourishes its fundamental values. Together, the fundamental ethical

values constitute an ethics of democracy that operates both at the individual and the
organizational levels.
Figure-2
Fundamental Values
of a Democracy
Respect for human dignity

Freedoms (Religion, etc.)
Rights (Language, privacy, etc.)
Representative government
Rule of Law
Canadians accept that there are fundamental values (figure 2) that should govern
the actions and practices of institutions and individuals in a democratic society. One of
these values is expressed in article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The same ideas of
fundamental freedoms and rights is found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. The fundamental value that all human beings are equal in dignity requires that
a person’s worth be measured primarily in terms of their humanity, and not primarily in
terms of economic, efficiency, or other values; nor primarily in terms of their
membership in some group within society. We can consider this fundamental value as a
principle of basic equality requiring that everybody in a democratic society be treated as
equal in dignity in all decisions that affect what they can be and do as members of that
society. It is this meaning that Canadians attach to the principle of basic equality that
finds its equivalent in all other democratic countries that have given priority to the respect
for human dignity and to human rights and freedoms.
The idea expressed by the principle of basic equality is so fundamental to our

understanding of a democratic society that it is usually an unspoken assumption of what
we believe can and should be sanctioned by a democratic society. However, because this
principle is so obvious to us, we can lose sight of the fact that all decisions within a
democratic society must pass the test of satisfying it. It is worth taking a little time to
discuss its impact on what we believe is consistent with a certain way of life in a
democratic society.
To understand our use of the expression “equality in dignity”, it may help to

contrast it with what is involved in natural and social inequalities. To believe in a basic
“equality in dignity” of persons does not mean that we deny the existence of natural
inequalities between individuals. Physical and mental capabilities are not identical in
everyone. For example, some people are gifted in music while others are gifted in

painting; however, only a few individuals are gifted in both music and painting. Some
people are good at competitive sports, like hockey, while others excel in mental
competitions, like chess; however, very few of individuals are gifted in both. Similarly,
treating people as basically “equal in dignity” does not mean denying or rejecting social
differences between individuals. For example, the nature of our society will generate
social differences because only a few can enjoy the power of public office or have private
sector careers that demand higher education. History has shown that people can become
victims of a fickle economy or have to struggle to find work in new fields as the jobs
related to the training and experience they possess disappear.
Inequalities may also result from legitimate limitations imposed by society on

individuals. For example, section one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states that it “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.” (Italics added) In their day-to-day lives, Canadians will generally
not experience equally the impact of such imposed limitations. In the case of individuals
found guilty of breaking the laws of the land, the sentences they receive inevitably
produce social inequalities. However, even in this last case, the fact that all of us in a
democratic society are to be treated as basically “equal in dignity” places limits on the
kinds of sentences that can be imposed on persons found guilty by our court system. For
example, any person found guilty of a crime cannot be subjected to torture or cruel and
degrading treatment.
There is a presumption in a democratic society that everyone must be treated

with respect as a result of their basic “equality in dignity”, despite the natural and
social inequalities that exist (financial, power, education, intelligence, abilities, etc.),
many of which are to a large extent necessary or inevitable. Alternatively, none of
these inequalities could serve to justify behaviours or practices by Canadians that
would have the effect of neutralising our fundamental obligation to respect the
dignity of a person or, worse, of transgressing or condoning disrespect of that
dignity.
In conclusion, the very nature of a democracy provides us with a source of ethical

principles and values. These principles, like “Respect the dignity of all persons”, and the
related obligations express values in our democracy that are binding on all Canadians.
This is especially true for Canadians who, like Defence personnel, are in roles that
represent government, whether on Canadian soil or abroad.
PRIVATE/PUBLIC DISTINCTION
It is necessary that all members of the Canadian Forces and employees of DND
distinguish between two different spheres of their lives: everything related to their
personal and family life belongs to the Private and Non-public sphere and everything
related to their roles within government and public institutions belongs to the Public
sphere. For the purposes of this course, “public” refers to any organization that is part of
government and all other institutions that are generally considered to be governmental in

nature, whereas “non-public” refers to commercial organizations in the private sector and
non-profit organizations and institutions. Most Canadians distinguish fairly easily
between these different aspects of their lives since each sphere has many distinct
characteristics.
Figure-3
Two Spheres of Ethics
///////
Private & ///////
Non-public
///////
///////
Public
///////
CF members & DND employees
However, distinguishing the two spheres should not lead us to the conclusion that
they are totally separate and independent of each other. There exists an inevitable tension
between the public and the private/personal spheres, a tension which affects CF members
and DND employees. Figure 3 provides a useful illustration of the relationship between
the two spheres. On the one hand we act in the name of the government and are thereby
endowed with a public trust, while on the other hand we are citizens and employees with
legitimate private and personal claims on the government. Although most individuals
treat these two spheres as fairly autonomous dimensions of their lives, there is a
continuity between the values and beliefs held in these two spheres. For example, there is
a continuity between our sense of being honest and keeping promises in our personal
lives and in our public sector roles. Although the meaning of those values does not
change radically as we move from one sphere to the other, we regularly change the
weight assigned to specific values, beliefs, and obligations when making decisions in
one sphere or the other. For example, most of us accept the profit motive as a
legitimate value in our society, understood as a reasonable return for the risks taken.
Although we may accept and/or tolerate it as a legitimate value for business institutions,
we tend to look dimly on that motive if given the same weight by a member of the family
in dealing with other members of the family in the home.
Ethics and the Private Sphere
Whenever members of the CF or employees of DND act as individuals outside

their public roles, they are considered to be in their private/personal life. The importance
of the private/personal sphere is attested to by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that protects, as the highest law in the land, many of the values found in this
sphere. Our “private” life includes all actions taken independently as individuals, with
family, or with friends on matters that affect our lives. It also refers to what we do as
members of private and non-public organizations, such as a religious institution or some

other non-profit organization. Thus, the private and personal does not include, strictly
speaking, anything an individual does in his or her official role in government.
We all have our own personal and private view of what is right and wrong, of
what is the right thing to do. The principles that govern the actions and practices of
individuals in the sphere of “private/personal” life can vary significantly depending on
whether they were derived mainly from experiences in one’s home environment, ethnic
group, religious up-bringing, education or general life experiences. In as much as we each
possess a specific and individual set of values and beliefs that are more or less
systematically organized, we could be said to possess a “private morality”. For
individuals who are members of a group in the private and non-public sphere, they could
identify a specific set of values and beliefs that are more or less systematically organized
based on their membership in the group. In this case, it could be said that members of the
group possesses a “shared private morality”. This second type of “private” morality is
clearly demonstrated in the case of membership in a religious organization, where a set of
values, beliefs, and practices is shared between members of the organization. As a result,
individuals who possess both a “private morality” and a “shared private morality” will
often experience a tension between the demands of both sets of values and beliefs. For
example, it is not uncommon for individuals who practice a religion to find that their own
individual set of beliefs do not exactly correspond to the official religious beliefs
advocated by their religion. As can be seen from these few comments, the scope of a
“private” morality can be vast and complex.
Ethics and the Public Sphere
There are many signs that a rough consensus on values and beliefs exists within
our democracy. Some of these values and beliefs are fundamental and are reflected in
constitutional documents that define Canada and its democratic reality. Ethics in the
public sphere refers to beliefs, values, principles, and obligations that are shared by all
Canadians as members of a democracy and that define what is right and wrong in the
public sphere. For our purposes, we will treat the values, beliefs, and practices that
provide a foundation for our Canadian reality and that help us define right and wrong as
forming a kind of “public” ethics that can and should guide us in doing the right thing.
All actions related to positions at any level of government (local, municipal,

provincial, and federal), including positions at all levels of the organizations that
constitute them, are considered actions performed in a public role. It follows that
actions performed by military personnel while on a mission in a foreign country or by
civilian personnel carrying out job related tasks in a government office in Canada are
actions performed in a public role. What is not so obvious – until we think about it - is
the impact that our public role can have on what we do in the “private” sphere. For
example, governments have placed reasonable constraints on what we as individuals can
do in the “private” sphere if our actions could create a conflict of interest with our public
role. As a result, an employee of the DND cannot be instrumental in providing a member
of his or her family with a personal services contract. Of course, many of the same
constraints apply to military personnel. However, in the case of military personnel, there

are additional factors to be considered, since they do not cease to be members of the
Canadian Forces when they step into their “private” sphere. For example, although
public servants can engage in outside employment, military personnel can only do so
with the authorization of their Commanding Officer and to the extent that such
employment does not interfere with service needs. (QR&O 19.42) Finally, military
personnel are categorically prohibited from getting involved in political activity at the
federal and provincial levels of government. (QR&O 19.44)
ETHICS FOR DEFENCE
The CF and DND are public organizations within a democracy. Although distinct
legally, together, they constitute and carry out Canadian Defence. Accordingly, some
legislation, policies and regulations apply only to the CF and its military members and
others only to the DND and public servants. There is, however, much legislation that
applies to both organizations and their members, in addition to a range of government
policies that also apply to the Defence team. Although in principle the CF operates as a
separate organizational entity from the DND, in practice “they must work effectively with
public servants as an integral part of a single defence team.” (Duty with Honour, p. 12)
What must be emphasized is not that our nation has Defence institutions but rather
that these institutions are shaped and rendered legitimate by the democracy that brings
them into being. The very nature of Canada as a nation completely determines the type of
military it will have. Being a democracy determines both the ethically acceptable
purposes for which Canada’s military power may be used and the ethically acceptable
means available to its military in fulfilling those purposes. For example, Canadians
expected that Canada’s military force in Bosnia would not be used to attain objectives
outside its mandate without prior governmental approval of a change to the original
mandate. In considering whether or not to approve these objectives – or any objectives
requiring military force - the Canadian government will respect the ethical, legal and
political constraints that go hand in hand with being a democracy. Thus, it is unlikely
that the government would ever agree to the use of its military force in support of an
initiative whose success depended on the transgression of the basic human rights of the
citizens of a country.
A Values Based Program
The CF and DND have adopted an ethics program that is values based: the
Defence Ethics Program. A comprehensive values based program in the public sphere
maintains a dynamic balance between judgements based on compliance and judgements
based on ethical values. The distinction between the two types of judgements is
illustrated in Figure-4. It shows that compliance is a zone of values that has been
regulated in balance with a zone of values that has not been regulated. Although a values
approach places a heavy burden on an individual’s judgement, it does not eliminate the
need for compliance. It treats compliance as a zone of values governed by rules,
regulations, and laws enacted by legitimate authority that has the effect of reducing an
individual’s discretion concerning what to do in selected situations that concern the

public interest. For example, compliance in the case of conflict of interest measures
serves the positive purpose of ensuring that the application of the measures will be fair
and equitable across the public sphere.
Figure-4
A Dynamic Balance
Priority to Ethics implies
•Conduct by Ethical Values,
including Rule of Law
•Usually values and ethics
statements, codes and
programs to help members
deal with more complex
COMPLIANCE ethical issues
To Comply implies
VALUES
•Conduct by legal
standards, rules
and regulations
•Usually rules-
based codes that
stipulate right and
wrong
To ensure a common policy approach on subjects that should similarly

affect both CF members and DND employees, the CF and the DND jointly produce
Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAODs are an order for CF
members and directives to DND employees.
Figure-5
Values & Ethics: Common Application
Defence Administrative Orders and Directives

(DAOD)
An Order that applies to members

of the Canadian Forces
and
a Directive that applies to employees
of the Department of National Defence
There are several DAODs, relating to Ethics in the Canadian Forces and the Department
of National Defence, that have been issued in support of the Defence Ethics Program.

The following DAODs define the Defence Ethics Program, its mandate and the
authorities and responsibilities attached to it:
DAOD 7023-0: Defence Ethics

DAOD 7023-1: Defence Ethics Program
The Defence Ethics Program rests on a foundation provided by Duty with

Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada and the Values and Ethics Code for the
Public Service. At the heart of the DEP is the Statement of Defence Ethics, a concise
statement that captures essential elements of the Canadian military ethos and the
values and ethics of public service. The Statement of Defence Ethics represents a
core and a minimum set of ethical values necessary for military and civilian
personnel to work effectively and harmoniously together towards the purposes of
Canadian Defence. In addition, the DEP has also been designed to be fully responsive
to the unique organizational cultures within the CF and the DND. For example, the DEP
has taken into consideration both that the army, navy, and air force cultures possess
characteristics that make them all fundamentally military and that they also possess
characteristics that reflect significant differences.
Figure-6
The New Context
Are we less ethical than those

who preceded us
or
has the context changed?
Some may wonder why we need an ethics program at this point in our history.
They may wonder if it is because we are considered less ethical today than those who
preceded us? DEP argues that the need for an ethics program in the CF and DND today
is not because we are less ethical than our predecessors but that it is motivated and
justified by changes that have occurred in the context in which military and civilian
personnel carry out their responsibilities.
Significant changes in society, in technology, in government and in our

organizations have contributed to creating over time an environment in which making
choices and reaching decisions has become more complicated and complex than in the
past. These changes are both internal and external to the CF and DND. The main
changes are illustrated in Figure-7:

Figure-7
The Changing Context
EXTERNAL INTERNAL
¾Technological Organizational
Revolution Structure/Process
¾Canadian Society Operations
¾Transparency Strategic Person
• Technological Revolution – Changes in the field of computers and

information technology are probably the most noticeable to Canadians.
Computers, the Internet, information technology, all have dramatically
changed how we carry out our responsibilities in the CF and the DND.
• Canadian Society - Although sometimes taken for granted, the changes

produced in society by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
by Immigration, amongst others, are just as pervasive as the changes
produced by information technology. They are redefining the public
interest and, correspondingly, what is expected of the CF and the DND.
• Transparency – There now exists a heightened emphasis on access to

information, media scrutiny and the use of technology to provide
Canadians with a window on government decision-making, including what
happens in the CF and the DND.
• Changing organizational and management structure – The CF and the

DND leadership and management structures have been de-layered and
have pushed decision-making further down in the organization.
• Changing Context of Operations – Canadian military operations have

increased in number and reached a high level of intensity, scope and
complexity when compared to most of the second half of the 20th century.
• The “strategic person” – Changes in technology and organizational

structure and increased transparency have contributed to the emergence of
a new phenomenon: the “strategic person”. CF and DND personnel

anywhere in the world and at any level of the organisation can now make
decisions that can be broadcast by satellite worldwide and live and, as a
result, significantly influence policy and events at the strategic level.
Statement of Defence Ethics
It is reasonable to expect that a “public ethics” present in the foundation of the

institutions of democracy should also serve as the ultimate justification for any core set of
ethical values for Defence. As a matter of law, the CF, the DND, and Defence personnel
are required to ensure that Defence values are aligned with fundamental Canadian values
expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any core set of ethical
values for Defence must give proper weight to the ethical values that underlie the rights
and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. However, ethics for Defence requires more.
In response to a requirement to be more explicit and transparent about the ethics it

practices, the CF and its members and the DND and its employees have produced a
Statement of Defence Ethics. (Figure-8) The Statement incorporates essential Defence
ethical values from both the military ethos in Duty With Honour and the Values and
Ethics Code for the Public Service. It provides a minimum set of ethical principles and
obligations for military and civilian Defence personnel that allows them to work
effectively and harmoniously as a team while at the same time ensuring the ethical and
professional integrity of Defence.
Figure-8
As stated in the preamble, the Statement of Defence Ethics makes public a core set
of ethical values to which the institutions of Defence in Canada are committed and by
which they accept to be judged. It respects the unique nature of the CF and the DND
while at the same time ensuring a common framework of values that can guide and
support members of the Defence Team in all their professional activities. Thus, the
Statement of Defence Ethics provides a minimum set of basic values to support and
enhance the ability of military and civilian personnel to work together harmoniously.

The Statement of Defence Ethics contains three general ethical principles and six
basic obligations.
Figure-9
Defence Ethics Principles
Humanity
Respect the dignity
of all persons
Serve Canada before self
Obey and Support

Nation Lawful Authority
Organization
The three principles (Figure-9) are presented in a hierarchy of ethical importance:

first come our general obligations to humanity, then obligations to our nation, and finally
to lawful authority. The hierarchy of principles is justified by the nature of Canada as a
democracy. For most Canadians, the law, the good of the nation, and a fundamental
respect for humanity should always be properly aligned. We expect that our laws
generally represent a reasonable and practical formulation of what is good for Canada and
Canadians and, at the same time, allow us to be good global citizens. Of course, and most
importantly, when some of our laws no longer seem to reflect either a fundamental
respect for humanity or what is good for the nation, we have recourse to democratic
mechanisms through which we can bring about changes to these laws. It is interesting to
note that history teaches us how changes in the way we deal with fundamental rights and
freedoms in Canada have often reflected changes on how we understand what is meant by
“Respect the dignity of all persons”.
By arguing for a hierarchy of these three ethical principles, the Defence Ethics
Program simply expands on the idea that we are all called upon to exercise our public
roles by respecting the fundamental values that provide a foundation to our democratic
society and its institutions. It argues that there is a presumption in Defence that the
exercise of lawful authority is carried out in a manner that provides service to Canada
ahead of satisfying private and personal interests, and that service to Canada is done in
the spirit of fully respecting the dignity of all persons.
The Statement of Defence Ethics also contains six core defence ethical
obligations: integrity, loyalty, courage, honesty, fairness, and responsibility. There is no
hierarchy established among these six ethical obligations. In other words, they have
equal weight and, all else being equal; each one must be respected. These obligations
embrace fundamental values that run through the military as a profession, the public-
service, and our democratic society. These six ethical obligations represent a minimum

set of core ethical obligations that are meant to allow military and civilian personnel to
work harmoniously and effectively as a Defence Team. However, it is recognized that
these values are necessary but not sufficient to allow each member of the Defence Team
to fully carry out their assigned roles. For example, duty and fighting spirit are
fundamental values that the CF must cultivate to a very high degree in its military
personnel if they are to successfully complete their missions. Similarly, objectivity and
impartiality are values that the DND must foster to a very high degree in its public
servants if they are to be effective agents of the government in their dealings with the
private sector.
A poster copy of the Statement of Defence Ethics can be downloaded and printed from
the DEP web site: http://ethics.mil.ca/expectations/statement_e.asp.
Duty with Honour: The Military Ethos
Duty with Honour: The profession of Arms in Canada is “a defining document

for Canada’s profession of arms.”
Figure-10
It provides all members of the CF with a clear definition of what it means to be a

Canadian military professional. The profession of arms in Canada exhibits four main
attributes: Responsibility, Expertise, Identity, and Ethos. The Summary of Duty with
Honour contains the essentials of the main document and gives us a brief description of
Responsibility, Expertise and Identity (pp. 11-13):
“ Responsibility: Collectively, members of Canada’s profession of arms have a

core responsibility to the government and the people of Canada to defend the
nation and its interests.”
“Expertise: Expertise within Canada’s profession of arms derives from a deep and
comprehensive understanding of the theory and practice of armed conflict in its
many forms, ranging from war fighting to humanitarian missions.”
“Identity: Military members are indeed part of Canadian society, a fact reflected

in the Canadian values incorporated in the military ethos, and at the same time
they have a sense of a separate, distinct identity. Professional identity is
differentiated in a number of ways, and the realities of combat and operations at
sea, on land and in the air mean there will always be necessary differences in the
way that the military culture is expressed in each of the Environments.”
Duty with Honour describes the CF military ethos as “the foundation upon
which the legitimacy, effectiveness and honour of the Canadian Forces depend.”
Figure-11 shows that the CF military ethos draws from three main sources. It includes
first and foremost basic Canadian values that provide a firm foundation and legitimacy to
Canada’s profession of arms. It identifies military service values essential to its
effectiveness as a profession of arms. Finally, it singles out core ethical values -
Canadian military values - necessary for CF members to carry out their duty with honour.
Figure-11
CF Military Ethos
THREE ETHOS COMPONENTS INSTITUTIONALIZATION GOAL
• Unlimited Liability Beliefs and
• Fighting Spirit Expectations about
• Teamwork Military Service
• Discipline
Essential for
Military
Effectiveness
• Duty Ethos
Shapes PERFORM
• Loyalty Canadian
Professionalism
• Integrity Military DUTY
Sustaining Governs
• Courage Values WITH
Military Ethos Conduct
HONOUR
• Democratic Philosophy of
Service shaped by •Commitment of leadership
Principles
Canadian Values •Honouring the past
• Peace, Order and
Good Government •Guides education and training
• Rights and Canadian Values,
Freedoms •Supportive policies
• Respect the Dignity
Expectations and •Supportive environmental
of all Persons Beliefs sub-cultures
• Obey and support
lawful authority
The military ethos serves to shape and guide conduct, and ensures the profession’s
continued legitimacy as a vital national institution. It clarifies how members should view
their responsibilities and helps them express their unique military identity to others. The
Canadian military ethos represents the spirit that binds the other three attributes of the
profession of arms: responsibility, expertise and identity.”
The following quotation from Duty with Honour describes well Canada’s
profession of arms in terms of the four attributes:

It “is composed of military members who are dedicated to the defence of Canada
and its interest, as directed by the Government of Canada. The profession of arms
is distinguished by the concept of service before self, the lawful, orderly
application of military force, and the acceptance of the concept of unlimited
liability. Its members possess a systematic and specialized body of military
knowledge and skills acquired through education, training and experience, and
they apply this expertise competently and objectively in the accomplishment of
their missions. Members of the Canadian profession of arms share a set of
core values and beliefs found in the military ethos that guides them in the
performance of their duty and allows a special relationship of trust to be
maintained with Canadian society.” (p.10) (Bold added)
You are encouraged to read Duty with Honour: The profession of Arms in Canada
for a more in depth understanding of the demands of the profession of arms on Canada’s
military professionals. It can be accessed at the following Web address:
http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/palm/palm_e.asp
Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service
In announcing the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service, the President of
the Treasury Board stated, “a Code of Values and Ethics is an essential foundation for
public administration.” It “sets forth the values and ethics of the public service to guide
and support public servants in all their professional activities” and “will serve to maintain
and enhance public confidence in the integrity of the Public Service.” (Code, p. 6)
Figure-12
Chapter One contains the “Statement of Public Service Values and Ethics”. The
Statement rests on a balanced framework of four families of values: democratic,
professional, ethical and people values. These four families of values are not distinct but
overlapping. Chapters two and three of the Code contain measures that support the
practice of the values and ethics contained in the Statement. The Conflict of Interest
measures and Post-employment measures reduce discretionary judgement in relation to
certain activities to ensure fairness and transparency in serving the public interest. The
final chapter, Avenues of Resolution, recognises that there will be times when people

disagree on how to interpret the requirements of the Code and identifies alternative means
of resolving disagreements. Figure-13 provides a summary diagram of the Code.
Figure-13
P u b lic S e rv ice V a lu e s a n d E th ic s
F o ur F a m ilie s o f V a lue s
¾ W o r k W ith in L a w s Ch 2
of C an ad a D e m o c r at ic V a lu e s
C on flic t
¾ P e ac e , O rd e r, a n d H e lp in g M in iste rs ,
G o od G o ve rn m e n t
u n d e r la w , to se r v e of
t h e P u b lic In te re st
¾ S e r ve P u b lic b e fo re
In te r e st
P ro fe s si on al V a l u e s M e a sur e s
P riv at e In t e re st
S e r v in g w ith
Ch 1
¾ R e sp e c t t h e D ig n it y
an d V alu e of E ve r y
c om p e t e n c e ,
e xc e lle n c e , e f fic ie n c y, S tate m e nt SER VE
o b je c tivity an d P U B L IC
P e rs on
im p a rt ia lit y o f P u b lic S h ap e
P ro fe s sio n a lism IN T E R E S T
¾ L o yall y Im p le m e n t
L a w f u l D e c isi on s E th ic a l V alu e s
S e rv ic e & G o v e rn s
W IT H
C on duct
¾ In t e g rit y A c tin g at all tim e s in V a lu e s IN T E G R IT Y
su c h a w ay a s to
¾ L o yalt y u p h o ld th e p u b lic & E thic s
tru st
¾ H on e sty Ch 3
¾ O b je c tivity P e op le V alu e s P ost-
D e m on str atin g
¾ Im p a rti alit y
re s p e c t, f ai rn e ss an d E m p loy m e n t
¾ T r an sp a r e n c y c ou rte sy in t h e i r M e a sur e s
d e alin g s w ith b o th
¾ F air n e ss c it ize n s an d f e llo w
p u b lic se r v an t s
¾ R e sp on sib ilit y
¾ A nd O thers
Democratic Values focus on what public servants must do to help Ministers,

under law, serve the public interest. To this end they must ensure that honest and
impartial advice and all information relevant to a decision is made available to Ministers.
They must practice loyalty to government in implementing ministerial decisions, lawfully
taken. They must support both individual and collective ministerial accountability and
provide Parliament and Canadians with information on the results of their work.
Professional Values relate to how public servants must fulfil the requirements of
public service by serving with competence, excellence, efficiency objectivity and
impartiality. They must work within the law of Canada and maintain the spirit of political
neutrality. They must use public money properly, effectively and efficiently. They must
ensure that not only the ends but the means to attain those ends fully adhere to public
service values and ethics. They must strive to ensure that the value of transparency in
government is upheld while respecting their duties of confidentiality under the law.
Ethical Values stress what public servants must do to ensure that they uphold the
public trust at all times, being ever vigilant in dealing with the overlap between their
public and private spheres. They must act at all times in a manner that will bear the
closest public scrutiny; an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within
the law. They must ensure that all decisions made in their official duties and
responsibilities are in the public interest. They must perform their duties and arrange their
private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and
impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. If a conflict should arise

between their private interests and their official duties, it must be resolved in favour of
the public interest.
People Values emphasize the qualities that public servants must demonstrate in
their dealings with citizens and fellow public servants. They must always exercise their
authority and responsibility inspired by respect for human dignity and the value of every
person. They must treat others with fairness and civility. Public servants at all levels
must ensure that public service organizations are led through participation, openness and
communication and with respect for diversity and the official languages of Canada. They
must base appointment decisions in the Public Service on merit. They must ensure that
public service values and ethics play a key role in recruitment, evaluation and promotion.
You are encouraged to read the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service
(pp. 7-10) for a more complete description of the four families of values. It can be
accessed through the Treasury Board website at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca or at the following
address http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_851/vec-cve_e.asp
Defence Ethics and Compliance

A comprehensive values based program in the public sphere requires a dynamic
balance between judgements based on generally accepted ethical values and judgements
based on compliance. Thus CF members and DND employees must strive to maintain a
balance between judgements based on the values in the Statement of Defence Ethics and
judgements based on compliance with regulations like the Defence Administrative Orders
and Directives (DAODs). Although DAODs still require interpretation and judgement in
their application, they are meant to limit the scope of judgement of CF members and
DND employees by defining specific responsibilities and constraints imposed on them.
The DAODs (Figure-14) related to Defence Ethics focus on responsibilities and
constraints that assist personnel in managing both their dealings with the private sector
when acting in their official capacity and the overlap between their public and private
spheres.
Figure 14
C o m m o n A p p lic a tio n
C o n flic t
o f I n te r e s t
I n te r n a l
S p o n s o r s h ip s DEFENCE D is c lo s u r e
& D o n a tio n s E T H IC S
G ifts ,
P o s t- H o s p ita litie s
E m p lo y m e n t & B e n e fits
D e fe n c e A d m in is tr a tiv e O r d e r s a n d D ir e c tiv e s

DAODs provide CF members and DND employees with a common policy

approach on ethical issues affecting both groups similarly and, thus, ensure fairness of
treatment. For example, it should be obvious to all that CF members and DND
employees should only accept or keep gifts of a minimal value offered to them when they
are acting in their official capacity. However, there are many circumstances in which the
decision is not obvious. The CF and the DND have an obligation to provide CF members
and DND employees guidance on what to do when being offered gifts by persons with
whom they have contractual dealings in their official capacity. Given the sensitive nature
of the relationship between the government and the private sectors, DAODs are necessary
to formally address these matters for CF and DND personnel. DAODs have been
produced that describe responsibilities, obligations, and specific constraints that must be
complied with by CF members and DND employees in matters relating to conflict of
interest and post-employment. Although requiring interpretation, DAODs serve to
minimize the possibility of conflict between the roles of CF members and DND
employees in the public sphere and their personal interests in the private sphere and to
resolve potential conflicts between the two spheres equitably.
The main DAODs relating to Defence Ethics matters are:
DAOD 7021-0: Conflict of interest and post-employment;

DAOD 7021-1: Conflict of interest;
DAOD 7021-2: Post-employment;
DAOD 7021-3: Acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits, and
DAOD 7021-4: Sponsorships and Donations.
All these DAODs can be accessed through the Defence Ethics Program website at
http://ethics.mil.ca/pages/coi_e.htm. Employees and members are encouraged to review
their responsibilities and obligations set out in the DAODs.


Ethical Decision Making 33
PART II
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

A BASIC DECISION MAKING MODEL
The Defence Ethics Program recognizes the need for tools to assist members and
employees in making ethical decisions. The following general model of the decision
making process is a tool that provides insight into the different stages of making
decisions. This model contains four stages. It provides a good description of the stages in
decision-making and of how they can be theoretically organized.
The model: (1) perception, (2) judgement, (3) intent-commit, and (4) action
In some cases, the components must be worked through sequentially, while in

other cases, they may be collapsed one into the other. To deal adequately with
complicated and complex situations we may have to work back and forth through the four
components many times before we reach a judgment that can be considered prudent and
meeting the aim of doing the right thing. (Figure-15)
Figure-15
Decision Making Model
Perception (Learning)
Judgement
Intent-Commit
Action
In putting forward this model as a description of decision-making, we are not

saying that individuals actually work their way consciously through each and every stage
of the model prior to any action being taken, nor that they should. Depending on the
urgency, the importance, and the complexity of a situation, going through this sequence
could be virtually instantaneous, taking just a few seconds or last for days, months, and
years. However, the shorter the time available for action, the greater the importance of
having learned and practised the decision making sequence on similar types of ethical
situations beforehand.
Perception (stage 1) is first and foremost a holistic experience. Our knowledge,

values, ethics, attitudes, personality and character are all brought into play in a general
apprehension of a situation. However, if we experienced fully all of the details in our
ongoing experience of life, our physical, mental, and spiritual systems would soon be
overwhelmed. As a result, we have developed habits of perception that assist us in
dealing with our everyday reality. The values and ethics that we trigger at this stage have
a determining effect on how we will deal with a situation. As a result, if we don’t
perceive the situation as involving any ethical values, then we will leave ethics out of the

decision making. Part I of this course focuses on the values and ethics that are an integral
part of Defence Ethics and is meant to enhance how we perceive events in terms of those
values and ethics. Defence values and ethics should be in integral part of our perception
of all situations encountered in our roles as CF members and DND employees.
In what follows, we study more closely Judgement (stage 2) and Intent-

Commit to action (stage 3). (Figure-16) The Judgement stage is itself best understood as
a process with its own set of general components. For practical purposes, we divide
judgment into four general components:
1. General assessment of the situation; 2. Ethical considerations;
3. Identifying options and risks; and 4. Choosing.
Figure-16
COMMIT TO AN ACTION
(J-4) CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION
(J-3) OPTIONS AND RISKS
(J-2) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
(J-1) ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION
JUDGEMENT (STAGE 2)
Our understanding of ethics is essential in determining whether or not we perceive

anything ethically significant in a situation in the first place. Once we have established
that a situation has characteristics that require ethical consideration, we enter the
judgement stage of the decision making process.
(1) General Assessment of the Situation
By starting with a general assessment of the situation, we can produce an initial

summary of the main issues at stake and identify the main factors that must be addressed.
Assessing a situation, including attaching different weights to factors that affect it, is a
common every day activity that all of us regularly practice. However, it is important to be

aware that facts don’t just jump out at us already tagged as relevant facts and already
prioritized as to their relative importance. As CF members and DND employees we
assume roles that greatly impact on what should be considered “our business” and what
should be considered “none of our business”. A general assessment of the situation is the
first step in determining relevancy and importance and to help us neutralize some of the
restrictive effects of our perceptual habits.
A general assessment should include an assessment of two different types of relevant

factors concerning: individuals and the working or mission environment. Individual
factors include people’s sense of identity, relationships, values and moral development.
Working or mission environmental factors refer to social, legal, governmental and
professional requirements and the characteristics of the situation itself.
(2) Ethical Considerations
In any human situation, there are many factors present that we take for granted
and do not question. When ethical values are involved, such an attitude can lead to
unhealthy practices perpetuated through time. For example, it was not that long ago that
most people assumed without questioning that hiring practices in the Canadian Forces
were fair to all applicants. However, cases involving gender issues since the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms was made law in 1982 have made it clear that
unacceptable biases had been built into CF hiring practices. As a result, these practices
were revised.
All situations in life where ethics is present and relevant involve the application of
values that are important to us. In most cases, we work through the relative complexity of
each of the situations to reach a “best” and prudent conclusion about a course of action.
If we are systematic in our efforts, we are probably applying one of the widely used ways
of thinking about ethics developed in western societies. The Defence Ethics Program has
singled out six of the main ways of thinking about ethics that are useful to better
appreciate the diverse and legitimate means of deciding on right action.
Six Systematic Ways of Thinking About Ethics - There are six widely used
general approaches to ethics in western societies that serve to guide ethical judgement.
Each has roots in major philosophical traditions that have developed these approaches
more systematically and extensively:
a) rule-based,
b) consequence-based,
c) care-based,
d) virtue-based,
e) Multiple-approach basis, and
f) self interest-based.
(a) Rule-Based - For people working in the public sector, the first step in assessing
what is the right thing to do will often be to check if there is a rule or a regulation that

covers the situation. This habit is consistent with a long tradition in democratic countries
of giving priority to the law. Of course, giving priority to the law existed long before
modern democracies. For example, very large numbers of religious believers have
treated the Law for a thousand year and more as first and foremost something received
from God. There was also a time when the law was produced by someone empowered by
God to rule on earth (for example, an anointed king). In more recent times, many have
based the legitimacy of laws solely on natural law, the belief that there are basic laws of
nature that apply to humans (as natural beings) and their relationships and that human
reason is sufficient to discover them. For large numbers today, the law is a necessary
social construct, without which society, as we know it, could not function.
A law is considered a rule that is binding on its own, without any reference to the
consequences that may result from following that rule in particular situations. When we
refer to laws in democratic societies, we usually have in mind written laws legislated and
enforced by the three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial.
However, we are all aware of laws that rest on a different foundation. For example, there
is a well known law found in Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you”. A familiar example of an unwritten law in our society is that promise keeping
has value in itself. What is common to all of these cases is that the law, written and
unwritten, is considered a rule that must have priority in judgements that determine what
should or should not be done.
This approach to ethical judgement is associated mainly with the deontological

tradition that stresses the priority of duty in all circumstances. The philosopher
Immanuel Kant is probably the leading modern representative of a duty based approach.
In his ethical philosophy, a person’s actions have moral worth only if his or her actions
are done freely and guided by reason. He also argued that reason itself was rule-based,
governed by a moral law, and that the right thing to do is determined by imperatives that
satisfy the requirements of the moral law.
(b) Consequence-Based - When democratic governments produce laws to

implement programs designed to advance the public interest, the legislators often justify
their choices by referring to the public good that the results are intended to produce. In
essence, they assess the worth of the results of the actions to be taken under the
legislation - for example, providing monetary relief to Canadian beef cattle farmers
adversely affected by the United States closure of its borders to Canadian beef– and argue
that the legislation is necessary because of the good that it will produce. Whenever we
use a cost-benefit analysis as the primary means of deciding the right thing to do, we are
applying a consequence-based approach. The same is true, if we are mainly motivated by
the adverse consequences of our actions. For example, if our primary motivation to avoid
speeding 50 kilometres over the speed limit is our desire to avoid the large fine that will
result from being caught, we are applying a consequence-based approach.
This approach to ethical judgement is mainly associated with Utilitarianism, a

consequentialist tradition that stresses the overriding priority of the results of actions in
all circumstances. One of the dominant forms of this tradition is represented by the

philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians have argued that in deciding what is the right
thing to do, the determining factor is to choose whatever action will produce the greatest
happiness or well-being for the greatest number.
(c) Care-Based – When health care advocates pressure government to provide

Canadians with an effective health care system, they often base their arguments on the
principle that all Canadians deserve to be treated humanely. Those who defend a care-
based approach argue that a better and more appropriate basis for decision making in our
modern times is the humane treatment we are all owed as human beings. For example, it
was not so long ago that the prevailing view of justice, heavily influenced by economic
and utilitarian motives, justified practices related to maternity in the workplace that were
discriminatory to women. Today, many of these practices have been changed. Arguments
for maternity leave are now based in large part on a view of justice that is heavily
influenced by care motives.
Although the obligation to care for others has been around for thousands of years,
it has only been since the twentieth century that it has been defended widely as the
primary basis for decision-making in the public sphere. A care-based approach to ethical
judgement argues that the focus of decision-making in our democratic societies must
move away from what it calls power-type strategies. It criticises rule-based strategies
because they give priority to abstract laws and criticises consequences-based strategies
because they rely mainly on assessing the usefulness of the outcomes of actions. It
argues that we have obligations of care for humanity that go beyond the strict application
of abstract laws that can be very inhumane and beyond the cold blooded calculations of
utility. Rule-based strategies and consequences-based strategies are valid and useful only
if they are subordinated to the principles of care.
Given the recent appearance of a strong care based approach on the ethics scene,
there isn’t yet a main representative of the movement. However, many care-based
advocates have strong roots in the feminist movement. Interested readers are referred to
the works of philosophers like Annette Baier on trust and Nel Noddings on care and of
psychologist Carol Gilligan on moral development.
(d) Virtue Based – Understanding ethics primarily by focusing on the virtuous

individual and on his or her inner traits, dispositions, and motives has also been around
for thousands of years. It was the basis for Aristotle’s practical study of human action.
For Aristotle, if someone wanted to learn how to become a person that practises honesty,
loyalty, justice, or any of the other virtues, the proper way to learn this was not to start
with abstract concepts but rather to experience these virtues through the action of others
and to imitate that action. This approach is still widely accepted today, as is evidenced
by the widely held belief that children learn what to do primarily by what they see others
do and not primarily by what they are told. The importance and value of focusing on an
individual’s character is also evidenced in the work done in transformational leadership.
Advocates of a virtue-based approach to ethical judgement argue that a person of

good character strives to do the right thing. They argue that there is a dynamic

relationship between an individual’s character and the society, community, or group in

which they live and work. A person of good character is one that reflects to a large degree
the fundamental values of that society, community, or group. Thus, a virtue-based
approach will argue that what contributes to shaping character should have priority. In
particular, shaping character should be the primary focus of an organization’s training
efforts. In the public sphere, and particularly in Defence, there is a growing emphasis
placed on the dynamics between an individual’s inner traits, dispositions, and motives
and the organizational culture. This trend is consistent with findings in organizational
theory indicating that great importance is attached today in organizations not only in
matching individuals to jobs but also in ensuring that their characters fit well with the
organization’s culture.
Virtue-based approaches as a basis for determining what is the right thing to do

returned to prominence in the second half of the twentieth century as a result of a
growing dissatisfaction with the perceived insufficiencies of the dominant ethical theories
of the times, in particular with utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological ethics. Interested
readers are referred to the works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Philippa Foot, Michael Slote,
and also Annette Baier and Carol Gilligan.
(e) Multiple-Approach Basis – Many individuals have experienced something

similar to the following sequence of events. For example, while interacting with each
other during a morning break, coworkers rightfully feel that the right thing to do is
usually governed by respect for one another. After the break, they return to a job related
task that involves dealing with contracts and they rightfully believe that, in these
circumstances, the right thing to do is primarily dictated by the rules governing contracts.
Later in the day, some of them may be involved in assessing options for the acquisition of
a new piece of equipment and they rightfully believe that they should be primarily
concerned about the performance and the costs of the various options available. In this
example, the basis for doing the right thing shifts because factors intrinsic to the context
favour one approach to ethics over another.
A multiple-approach to ethical judgement claims that we must apply a multiplicity

of ethical approaches, singly or in combination, when dealing with an ethical situation:
rule-based, consequence-based, care-based, virtue-based, and in some cases self-interest-
based. It argues that the attempts of ethical theories to provide a foundation for ethics in
some unifying first principles – for example, the greatest happiness principle of
utilitarianism/consequence-based – is fundamentally misguided. It argues that we
experience many standards of value and many truths and that these truths are sometimes
partial and sometimes conflicting. In a multiple-approach to ethics, the context and the
situation contain factors that impact the selection of the best approach for deciding what
is the right thing to do in that situation. Interested readers are referred to the works of
John Kekes, Michael Walzer, Nicholas Rescher, and Lawrence Hinman.
(f) Self-Interest-Based – Consider a single working parent with two children.

She or he may well receive good advice from others on the importance of taking care of
themselves and not running themselves into the ground. If they don’t heed the advice

both the job and the family will suffer. Similarly, research has shown the detrimental
effect on judgement that sleep deprivation can have on military personnel. If leaders
don’t take care of themselves, grave consequences can occur to both the mission and the
personnel they command. Advocates of a self-interest-based approach consider it
important to assess how a particular decision might affect them personally. However,
most of us can easily recognize that there is a danger in giving too much weight to self-
interest needs and of rationalizing the practice of always looking out for number One. For
employees of the Department of National Defence and members of the Canadian Forces,
giving too much weight to a self-interest-based approach in decision making at the
expense of the public interest they are supposed to advance can result in the abuse of
power or lead to careerism.
A self-interest-based approach claims that we are primarily motivated by what we

believe is in our own self-interest and that everyone would be better off if we all looked
out for our own interests. The self-interest-based approach does not however rule out
taking care of others. It gives many great pleasure to care for their children or for others
and hence is in their self interest to do so. Interested readers are referred to the works of
David Gauthier, Ayn Rand, and Thomas Hobbes.
Ethical Dilemmas - They represent only a small number of all the situations that
we will encounter in life and the workplace that involve ethics. (Figure-17) It is not what
makes ethical dilemmas ethical that makes them stand out from the rest, but what makes
them dilemmas. There are two important sources of ethical dilemmas: internal conflict
(within ourselves) and external conflict (with others and the environment). In both cases,
the dilemma is the result of the competing standards or values that are ever present. The
original and strict definition of a dilemma refers to a problematic situation in which there
are only two possible options for resolving it and both options are considered either
equally desirable or equally undesirable. In addition, there are no additional criteria for
selecting between the two options. The original meaning of a dilemma is expressed well
in the saying “caught on the horns of a dilemma”.
Figure-17
Ethical Situations and

Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical
Situations
Ethical
Dilemmas

Ways of working out dilemma situations have been around for thousands of years.
For example, in the bible, King Solomon’s famous method of uncovering the real mother
of a baby being claimed by two women illustrates how one could deal with an ethical
dilemma. He relied on what he believed to be the strength of a mother’s love for her
child when he announced that, in the absence of a clear criteria, the only just thing to do
was to give each claimant one half of the baby.
In our contemporary society, the scope of the term dilemma has been extended to
include problem situations where there may be more than two options for resolving the
situation. Today, an ethical dilemma may refer to any of the following three types of
dilemma situations: the Uncertainty Dilemma, the Competing Values Dilemma, and the
Harm Dilemma. The Uncertainty Dilemma is the general case for an ethical dilemma
situation. The Competing Values Dilemma and the Harm Dilemma are specialised cases
of the Uncertainty Dilemma.
Uncertainty Dilemma – This type of ethical dilemma captures the essential feature
of any dilemma situation. To be in a dilemma situation, we must have reached a point
where we have two or more options that are equally desirable, or undesirable, and valid.
In other words, it is not clear what is the right thing to do because there are equally valid
reasons for all options worked out. It may be that the criteria we have used to assess our
options do not allow us to decide for one or the other of the options. It could also be that
we have employed competing strategies in developing the options.
Competing Values Dilemma – It involves the special case of two or more ethical
values competing with each other. There are many potential sources of competing values
dilemmas for DND and CF personnel. For example, we may be put in a situation of
having to choose to act based either on our loyalty to a Commanding Officer or a
supervisor who seems involved in a conflict of interest and our own personal and
professional integrity. This may also be happen to the CF and the DND as organisations
in circumstances where being fiscally responsible competes with being fair to its
members and employees.
Harm Dilemma – Every available option worked out will cause harm or injury.
In general, one resolves an ethical dilemma by identifying a basis for assigning

more worth to one of the critical values or systematic approaches than to the other
competing values or approaches. Depending on the type of dilemma, this strategy may
allow us to choose an option that will cause the least harm or injury, or an option which
supports a specific ethical obligation, or develop a new option that overcomes the
dilemma situation by incorporating various aspects of the other options.
(3) Options And Risks
In developing a course of action to deal with a situation, one must work out the
reasonable options from which to make a choice. This process will involve defining the
options, analysing their effects, listing the ways and means of implementing the options,

and identifying all relevant and important risks to ourselves and the organization of
carrying out each course of action.
Options and their effects - Options are often a mixture of ethical considerations
and other factors. It is important to sort out what weight is being assigned to the different
types of factors and why. In addition, to the extent that ethics is being considered at all,
the reasoning used will usually involve one or more of the six systematic approaches to
ethical judgement presented above. Whatever the options and related systematic
approaches, the effects of each option would normally also have to be considered in terms
of their ethical worth.
Way/Means - Once possible options to deal with a situation have been identified,
the search for the means to implement the preferred option begins. In some cases, the
means may not be available. Although we may have identified the best option in an ideal
world, there may be no way of carrying it out. This, in itself, may create a dilemma. In
such circumstances, we may have to select the next “best” option or forego any action
whatsoever. Although the means of resolving the situation are often worked into the
option, it is important to distinguish them from options and their effects. The latter refer
to the goal to be reached or the mission to be accomplished, whereas the means
themselves refer to the mechanisms and resources that will achieve the aim.
Personal and organisational Risks - As we consider what needs to be done, we

will inevitably think of the risks to the organization associated with the preferred option.
It will also be very difficult for us not to be influenced by any personal risks to which
some option may expose us and others. These personal risks include a whole spectrum of
effects, from a bad performance evaluation, to a “career ending” stand, to physical and
life threatening danger to ourselves and others with whom we serve. They also involve
anything that will impact the quality of life for our families. It is easy to appreciate how
strongly these risks can be perceived to be and the need to seek a proper balance between
these various dimensions in reaching a judgement about the right thing to do.
(4) Choosing
If the above process has been applied well, the choice of the best option should be
fairly straightforward. The difficulty is not normally with the “logical” choice but with
what is involved when we must shift from choosing the best option to committing to
action, from decision to action. We now turn to that stage of ethical decision-making.
COMMITTING TO ACTION (STAGE 3)
Quite often, by the time we get to a decision, especially if we have taken the time
to go through the steps in this model, commitment to action is nearly simultaneous. Yet,
it is useful to remember that the two should be distinguished. A decision involves
primarily our rational side. By contrast, the actual commitment to action, the decision to
initiate action, involves all of us. Until we move from the choosing mode to the mode of
committing to action, we are still, to a certain extent, in the realm of only good or bad

intentions. For some, the transition can be very difficult, to the point where it is advisable
for them to seek assistance to go from the “I’m still in the choosing mode” to “I’m getting
on with the best choice”.
Moving from a decision to action is often filled with second thoughts. By gaining
a better understanding of this stage of decision-making, we are better prepared to take
action that deals adequately with the potential obstacles to ethical action. This section
will look at the “YaBut” syndrome and a three-level model of ethical obligation.
“YaBut”
The “YaBut” syndrome is fairly universal. We experience it every time we think

we have made a decision and then feel enough resistance about putting it into action that
we give ourselves more time before taking action. Some describe it as similar to hitting
an invisible wall. Although there are many causes of this phenomena - for example,
concerns relating to financial, psychological or physical harm - it always involves the
uncertainty that is an integral part of any future action. The “YaBut” phase is
categorically different from the analysis done during the judgement phase. While
analysing our options, our reason has the upper hand, as we identify options, and choose
and decide on the best one. “YaBut” occurs after we have completed the more rational
judgement phase.
Here are some of the expressions that indicate that someone who should be
committing to action is really saying “YaBut”:
- “It may be the right thing to do, but this is too risky for me.”
- “It’s no use doing this, it won’t accomplish anything”.
- “You can’t tell that (rank) that he is wrong! He is always right!”
- “I’m not sacrificing my career for that.”
- “Oops! That’s not what she wants to hear. Better rework those numbers”.
- “How can this be right if it’s going to cause so much harm?”
- “It seems like the logical thing to do, but it doesn’t feel right.”
If you find yourself in this predicament, you may be tempted to choose the second
best or third best options, or no action at all.
As can be seen from the above list of quotes, the situations implied by these
comments bring into question our ability to do our work ethically and professionally.
The effectiveness and the integrity of the CF and the DND depend upon the moral
courage of its personnel to find a way to overcome such obstacles.
In some cases, attempting to open up avenues of dialogue with the person

perceived to be the source of the risk may be sufficient to dissolve the “YaBut”. In other
cases, however, formal mechanisms may be required to assist personnel in overcoming
the “YaBut”, especially in situations involving the rights and freedoms of CF and DND

personnel or the integrity of government. CF and DND policies on harassment and

conflict of interest are examples of such mechanisms. If the source of your “YaBut”
involves one of these situations, the CF and the DND strongly encourage you to use the
avenues that have been put in place to allow you to overcome the “YaBut” obstacles to
doing the right thing. Some of these avenues are:
• Chain of Command;
• Harassment Co-ordinators;
• Chaplains;
• Social Workers;
• Union representatives;
• Employee Assistance Program representatives;
• CF/DND Office for Disclosure;
• Office of the Ombudsperson; and
• Public Service Integrity Office.
Three Levels of Ethical Obligations
The following is adapted from a three-level model of ethical obligation proposed

by James Fishkin in The Limits of Obligations that can help us understand the ambiguity
and the resistance we may legitimately feel in the face of action we agree we should do,
but can’t bring ourselves to do. The model establishes a link between our assessment of
the level of risk involved to ourselves and others in taking a proposed action and a
corresponding varying degree of ethical obligation. The three levels are heroism, robust
obligation, and optional obligations.
Heroism - Actions at this level are actions taken in circumstances that are
exceptional and that we, as individuals, are not called upon to perform often in the course
of a lifetime. They often involve situations of crisis or of grave danger. However, this
should not blind us to the fact that such actions occur on a regular basis in our society.
Heroic actions can be either physical or moral. In many cases, although the opportunity
may be there to perform such actions, few are faulted by society for not having carried
out heroic actions. For example, in one case a person on the shore who does not know
how to swim sees a child drowning but out of reach. The person on the shore finds a long
branch, jumps into the water with a strong current, and reaches the drowning child with
the branch just in time. In a different case, another person who does not know how to
swim may well stand by helplessly on the shore as a person out of reach drowns. Society
does not generally fault the person in the second case who stood by helplessly.
Robust Obligations - Actions at this level are in the zone of ethical obligations
related to the roles we fulfil in our lives and, in our official capacities. However, they
also cover the whole range of unusual and high risk actions that form an integral part of
certain types of roles and jobs in our society – for example, military and law enforcement
activities. In most cases, individuals who fail to do the actions required by these
obligations are faulted for not having done them. Therefore, to understand what actions

belong at this level, we must consider not only the general characteristics of ethical
obligations but also the differences in duties associated with different types of
employment. This means that what is considered a duty to one person because of their
type of employment (for example being a member of the CF or of a law enforcement
agency), may be considered beyond the call of duty in someone else’s case.
Optional Obligations - At this level, it is very important to specify the point of

view adopted to assess the obligation. Since we are dealing with the public sphere, we
must distinguish between different types of actions that would create optional obligations
when exercising our public roles: actions related to our private life while we exercise our
public roles; trivial actions related to our public roles; and actions that occur in our
private life. For example, what an individual chooses to eat at lunchtime is usually a
personal decision. Similarly, whether a CF members choose jogging or swimming as a
form of maintaining physical fitness is usually left to their discretion and does not usually
have any relevance to decision making in their public roles. Finally, many of the actions
performed in our roles as parents, spouses, charitable organization, and other personal
commitments may represent robust obligations in our private life but should usually have
little relevance for most of our decision making in our public roles. Thus, robust
obligations related to the private life of members of the CF and employees of DND
should often be treated as optional when they act in their official capacity.
Circumstances influence whether we assess a particular action as heroic, as a

robust obligation, or as optional. Our moral sense of what is right can often serve as a
guide in assessing the relative importance of circumstances on decisions we take in our
public roles. Circumstances also cause similar acts to migrate between levels. For
example, you are new to a section. One day, you and others witness a clear case of
disrespect and abuse of authority against a subordinate much lower in rank than the
perpetrator. Although there is a robust obligation to do something, everyone you talk to
informs you that the perpetrator has the power and the demonstrated will to take reprisal
action. Some coworkers have concluded from past experience with this person that it
would be too risky to speak up concerning any observed unethical matters in the
workplace. Doing the right thing in such circumstances may well require heroism. To
reduce the number of situations that require these types of heroic action, the CF and the
DND have multiplied the number of mechanisms that allow personnel to do the right
thing in such circumstances by reducing the risks to themselves to an acceptable level.
By providing a means of categorizing the relative importance of proposed action,
the three level model of ethical obligations provides us with an idea of the degree of
resistance we can expect to feel when we want to go from decision to action. This may
encourage us to seek additional assistance in finding ways to overcome the resistance to
committing to action through self-help, friends, co-workers, or competent experts.
THE DEP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING MODEL
The Defence Ethics Program has developed a comprehensive Ethical Decision

Making Model (Figure-18) to serve as the basis for the Defence Ethics Survey.

Figure-18
Ethical Decision-Making Model

Indicators
Individual Values
Stages of Ethical
Organizational Decision-Making
Ethical Climate
Individual Approaches
To Ethics Recognize Ethical Ethical Ethical
Ethical Issue Judgement Intent Behaviour
Situational
Moral Intensity
Individual Ethical
Development
The survey is CF and DND wide. It was first conducted in 1999 to produce a baseline
assessment of ethical decision making in the CF and DND. A second administration of
the survey was conducted in 2003.
The DEP model includes the stages of decision making that have been studied in
this course. It identifies five key types of indicators, some of which have already been
covered in the preceding sections. As illustrated, the indicators interact with each other
and influence all stages of decision-making:
1) Individual values;
2) Organizational ethical climate;
3) Individual Ideological bases for ethical decision-making;
4) Moral Intensity of the situations; and
5) Individual Moral Development.
In this course, we have discussed Individual values and Individual ideological

bases for ethical decision-making. Integrity, courage, loyalty, honesty, fairness, and
responsibility are examples of Individual Values. As we have seen they are also ethical
obligations that have been singled out in the Statement of Defence Ethics for all military
and civilian personnel in Defence. Systematic approaches to ethics based on Rules,
Consequences, Care, Virtue, Self-interest, or a combination of these are all examples of
Individual ideological bases for ethical decision-making. Eleven organizational factors
are used to measure Organizational ethical climate. Moral intensity of the situations
measures the types of factors that qualify the situation itself, such as consensus of belief
in the rightness or wrongness of the situation. Although not assessed by the Defence

Ethics Survey, individual Moral Development identifies different phases that individuals
demonstrate in their ethical decision-making and behaviour.
This course does not allow us the time necessary to analyse in depth the results of
the Defence Ethics Surveys on ethical decision-making and on leadership’s abilities to
influence individual values, ethics, and a healthy ethical climate. However, the various
types of indicators identify important influences that need to be considered in the practice
of ethics in the organization. As illustrated in Figure-19, the main zone of leadership
influence focuses on creating an ethical climate. However, leadership can also impact
important factors that contribute to a situations ethical intensity. Although leadership can
only influence individual values and individual approaches (ideologies) to ethics
indirectly, that influence is real. As the two-way arrows show, all dimensions of ethics
are interconnected and affect each other. A leaders ability to influence directly one
dimension will inevitably carry over indirectly to the other dimensions.
Figure-19
Ethical Leadership
Influences
IP
SH
ER
D
A
LE
LEADERSHIP
Situational Ethical
Intensity Climate
ETHICS
Individual Values
& Ethical Ideologies
For those interested in finding out more about the meaning of the five types of
indicators, they can find the results of both the 1999 and the 2003 Defence Ethics
Surveys on the Defence Ethics Program website: www.dnd.ca/ethics: a) Baseline
Assessment of the Ethical Values in DND (1999); and b) 2003 Defence Ethics Survey.
You are encouraged to read the reports. They provide useful information on the
ethical values and approaches to ethics used by CF and DND personnel and on how they
perceive the ethical climate of the organization.


Concluding Remarks 49
PART III
CONCLUDING
REMARKS

The stated aim of this course is to gain knowledge of the complexities of Defence
ethics and its application. The selection of material for this manual has been primarily
motivated by the belief that by exploring what is involved in answering the question
What’s the right thing to do?, defence personnel will be better prepared to carry out their
responsibilities in accordance with the highest ethical standards.
Accordingly, in Part I, “Ethics and the Defence Ethics Program”, the course
material introduced important concepts related to ethics as it applies to government and to
Defence. In Part II, “Ethical Decision Making”, the material made use of decision
making models to address the different stages of ethical decision making and the factors
that influence it.
In these concluding remarks, we focus on two types of acts that require the
material found in Parts I and II: the Ethics Check and Voicing Ethical Concerns.
The “Ethics Check”
One very basic and important way to contribute to the ethical health of the CF and
DND is to ensure that all decisions are ethically validated prior to moving from decision
to action by carrying out an “ethics check”. Doing an “ethics check” may be a challenge
at first if we have not had the habit of doing so in the past. We all have a basic intuition
of what is right. It is sometimes referred to as a gut feel about what is the right thing to
do. By activating it, we tap into the core of what ethics is for us as a person.
Here are a few sample questions that help us focus our basic intuition of what is
right:
a. What is my general feeling toward the action being proposed?
b. What is my gut feel here?
c. Am I comfortable with this decision?
If your answers to any of these questions or similar questions when face with a decision
reveals that you are not satisfied, then consider the option of repeating the stages of the
decision making process.
A word of caution is in order. There is an important difference between appealing
to our basic intuition of what is right, our gut feel, when the ethics of the situation has not
yet been discussed and appealing to it after having reached a decision on the appropriate
action to take. Invoking our gut feel of what is right as a justification for action exposes
us to a “knee jerk” reaction to situations that may be much more complex and demanding
than first meets the eye and to all of the risks that accompany such reactions. However,
learning to rely on our basic intuition of what is right once that intuition has been
informed by working through the ethics of a situation is one of the most powerful means
of guaranteeing that the action proposed is the best ethically speaking. The “ethics
check” also represents an effective way of injecting ethical thinking in situations where
we may have become complacent and developed a habit of thinking that there is no need
for it.

Voicing Ethical Concerns
The social sciences have shown that the relationship between knowing what’s
right and doing what’s right can be a weak link. Strengthening this link is the main
challenge that we all face in the CF and the DND if we are to work in a healthy ethical
climate. One simple and straightforward way to reach this goal is to create an
environment where giving voice to our ethical concerns is not only encouraged but also
welcomed. By voicing these concerns, we, as individuals, bring them out into the open
where they can be dealt with in a public way rather than pushed out of sight where they
often cause problems that surface one day as a crisis. The CF and the DND have put in
place formal mechanisms that contribute to achieving this aim. These mechanisms are
especially important in certain circumstances, such as cases of harassment and
discrimination. However, formal mechanisms can only bring us so far. What is needed is
a commitment at all levels of the CF and the DND to encourage and support personnel to
voice ethical concerns.
The imperative of giving voice to our ethical concerns should be considered a
necessary means of sustaining the basic democratic principle: We are all equal in dignity.
However, to truly treat each other as equals in dignity in a free and democratic society,
we must also accept that this imperative has a corollary: Silence is no longer an
acceptable option.


.Annex A – A Method for Case Studies 53
ANNEX A
METHOD
FOR
CASE STUDIES

WORKING THROUGH A CASE STUDY

You can now put into practice what we have seen concerning Defence Ethics and
decision making by applying this knowledge to analysing and resolving cases involving
ethics. Of course, in working through real life cases, everything you already know about
ethics will be brought into play.
This manual does not contain actual case studies. They will be provided by the
workshop facilitator. This Annex contains an Ethics Analysis Case Study Discussion
Guide based on the Ethics Decision Making Model – a tool to help you come to a
decision about a particular course of action. After using this tool with the case studies
during this workshop, it is anticipated that you will be able to use this tool for other
ethical dilemmas you encounter.
AIM
The aim is for participants to increase their capability in dealing with real life
ethical cases through group discussion, using the knowledge acquired about defence
ethics.
OBJECTIVES
Participants will be able to:

a. demonstrate their knowledge of Defence Ethics,
b. use the components of judgement; and
c. determine some of the difficulties involved in moving from decision to action.
MOTIVATION
The best way to learn is by practise. Whether, you have gained new knowledge
today, confirmed your existing strategies, or just increased your awareness of tools that
can be helpful in dealing with the ethics of a situation, it is necessary to practise this to
gain maximum benefit. A group forum is an ideal environment for practise.
CASE STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
Syndicates of no more than eight people will be created.
• Case study will be assigned

• Syndicates will need to:
o Select spokesperson / presenter,
o Read the case study,
o Use the worksheet as a basis for discussion and record decisions,
o Respect opinions in group, and
o Encourage participation by all members.

• One of the groups will be chosen to present their findings to the entire class
• After the presentation, there will be an open discussion, and
• The instructor/facilitator will summarize (general debrief)
Figure-20
COMMIT TO AN ACTION
CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION
OPTIONS AND RISKS
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION
Ethics Analysis Case Study Discussion Guide

PERCEPTION AND JUDGEMENT
1. General Assessment:
a. Facts and Dilemma;
(1) What are the Facts?

(2) Is there an ethical dilemma here?
(3) List type of ethical dilemma & why?
(a) Uncertainty,
(b) Competing Obligations, and
(c) Harm,
b. Personal Factors;

(1) List in relative importance,

(2) Individual attributes (Perception, Position/status), and
(3) Relationships,
c. Environmental Factors;
(1) List in relative importance,

(2) Situational Factors, and
(3) Social and Work environment.
2. Ethical Considerations:
a. Defence Ethics Values;
(1) List the principles & obligations of concern,

(2) Defence Ethics Program,
(a) Respect the dignity of all persons,

(b) Serve Canada before self, and
(c) Obey and support lawful authority,
(i) Responsibility,
(ii) Fairness,
(iii) Loyalty,
(iv) Courage,
(v) Integrity, and
(vi) Honesty.
b. What’s the main ethical concern in this situation?
(1) Integrity,
(2) Loyalty,
(3) Courage,
(4) Honesty,
(5) Fairness, and
(6) Responsibility,
c. Which ethical approach seems the most appropriate?
(1) Rule-based,
(2) Consequences-based,
(3) Care-based,
(4) Virtue-based,
(5) Multiple-approach basis, and
(6) Self interest-based.

3. Options & Risks
a. List a range of options.
(1) What options would you propose?

(2) What are the types of effects (collateral, side effects) associated
with each option?
b. Ways / means /challenges of implementing?
(1) Consider factors like cost,

(2) time,
(3) available resources,
c. What organizational risks are involved in these options?
4. Choose a Course of Action:
a. What do you choose as the best course of action?
COMMITTING TO ACTION
When moving from decision to action the YaBut syndrome and the levels of moral
obligations are strong influences. Here are questions designed to get a feel for the
personal risks involved in committing to what one believes is the ethically right thing to
do:
a. What is my general feeling toward the decision being proposed?
b. What are the risks involved for me? For others?
c. Am I willing to undergo all the possible consequences of my action?
d. Do I need any help to assist me in implementing a difficult ethical decision

and where can I get it?


.Annex B – Cases 59
ANNEX B
CASES

Cases for Ethics
1. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: You are the manager of a consultant's contract

for a project involving matrix support. The work to be done by the project is considered
urgent. To save time and money, it is decided to use vendors' performance benchmarks to
determine equipment requirements. A consultant is hired to do the following:
a. contact the vendors;
b. document their recommendations and;
c. based on these vendor performance benchmarks, develop the equipment

specifications.
As part of the consultants contract, it is required that the vendors' performance

benchmarks be documented as evidence that the requirements will be met.
However, through the consultant’s interim report, it is discovered that the vendor's
recommendations are not adequate to allow specification of the equipment. The project
members meet and agree that the consultant has the necessary expertise in the area and is
the best person to develop the required specifications himself. It is also decided to do this
with no change in contract cost even though it will require him to spend an extra,
uncompensated, week's work on it. Therefore, the contract is amended only to reflect an
increase in duration and to indicate the consultant will develop the specification himself.
When the required specification is delivered, the manager of one of the matrix support
groups refuses to sign off on it. This manager agrees that the specification is adequate,
but there are no vendors' benchmark figures provided that can "prove" that the
consultant’s specification is right. Without the managers’ sign-off on the specification,
the project cannot proceed. It is estimated that it will take at least another two weeks of
effort for the consultant to produce vendor’s benchmarking data, two weeks for which he
will not be compensated and which is not explicitly covered even in the revised approach.
What do you do?
2. PERs: You feel that numerical scores on Personnel Evaluation Reports (PERs)
have become inflated over time. Consequently, supervisors are faced with two insidious
options: either score their subordinates “by the book” and disadvantage them for
promotion, or, inflate their scores and thereby contribute to the weakness of the PER
system. In addition, you believe that the practice of inflating scores forces supervisors
into the habit of not providing a truthful assessment of job performance to the personnel
being evaluated. On the other hand, you reason, that PERs are subjective. As long as
people write PERs, such factors as personality, perception, and each person’s idea of
what a “good” job means that they will always be that way, regardless of method
selected. “What would you do? and Why?”

3. DISCRIMINATION: You come across a document written by an NDHQ

authority about a minority group. The document is being used nationally, in the regions
and on the bases. As a member of the minority group, you know that this paper contains
a number of significant errors. The information in this paper is just not true. Although
the document is classified “Protected B”, you discuss these errors with a few civilian
friends, who also belong to the minority group. They tell you that they don’t expect
anything different from the government. In addition, they warn you about the danger of
stirring the waters when you’re a member of a minority group. “What would you do?
and Why?”
4. MARITAL ISSUES: You live in a housing complex for military personnel. In

addition, you were fortunate enough to become friends with three other co-workers and
their wives who also live in the complex. You and your wife have shared with them many
fun-filled summer weekends over B-B-Q in the housing complex court. In the last few
months, however, it has surfaced that the marriage of J.M., your best friend, may well be
over. Recently, while having coffee with him, he reveals that M.P, the wife of one of the
other couples, has been making advances. In fact, he tells you that he is going to accept
her invitation to “come over and dine and other things”, as she put it, when her husband
leaves next week for a four-week course. You tell him that this isn’t wise and that it will
create problems for everyone if he persists in this. He tells you that he isn’t going to give
up a golden opportunity like this, that he regrets having told you, and to forget he ever
spoke to you about it. What would you do? and Why?
5. GOLF TOURNAMENT: You have just become the CO of a Technical Services

Detachment, resident in a contractor's plant. In your first week on the job, you find out
that your staff is looking forward to the Contractor's Annual Golf Tournament, to be held
in three weeks at a very exclusive private golf club. The TSD's participation in this
tournament has gone on for many years. In fact, last year’s Tournament Cup sits in the
TSDs’ lunch room. Participation in the tournament includes a round of golf, dinner and a
prize-giving ceremony. You are, however, concerned. Although, you have experienced
this kind of good business public relations before, you feel that times are changing. What
would you do? and Why?
6. AIR MILES: About a year ago, you were fortunate enough to get a job that
requires that you travel often on Temporary Duty. Few of these trips require that you use
military transportation or accommodation. Prior to that, you had travelled a bit at your
own expense, and had opened an air miles account. Without thinking much about it, you
let all these “business” air miles be added to your account. Since everything you do on a
business trip, i.e. hotels, restaurants, car rentals, can accumulate air miles. Your spouse
was opening the mail recently and noticed that the account now has sufficient number of
air miles that both of you could get that needed holiday that you had been talking about.
In fact, she has found just the holiday package that would do the trick. As you think
about what to do, you remind yourself that you have been working long hours since you
have been in this job and there are virtually no “perks” left in the military. Although
recent changes in policy make collecting air miles or points legal, what ethical issues may
arise from this new policy change of allowing collection of air miles and points?

7. DRIVER PERMIT: You are a Senior Non Commissioned Member and your
unit will start a major deployment (Op Recuperation) in 24hrs. Most of the exercise will
be carried out on federal land, with some use of civilian road. As you go through the last-
minute check-list with one of your staff, she tells you about the tough break that just
happened to Cpl T.J. He is one of your top MSE Ops. It seems that he was just over the
line on the alcohol test - he had had three glasses of wine - and was convicted in a civilian
court of drunk driving. The judge decided to make an example of him and gave him a
one-year civilian Driver Permit suspension. Later in the day, you confirm the story and
that the Cpl has not reported the conviction to the chain of command. Although you have
already complained to your superiors about the shortage of staff, you have been told that
there are no additional personnel, and you’re convinced that you will not be able to carry
out all assigned tasks. What would you do? and Why?
8. THE BROKEN LEG: You are a Regular Force Senior Non-commissioned

Officer working as part of the Regular Force Support Staff at a Reserve Force unit. Your
Commanding Officer (CO), a Reserve officer, is a well-known member of the local
community. However, everyone in the local military and civilian community are aware
that he loves to « share a drink » and that he often shows up for duty in an inebriated
state. Everyone has preferred, up to now, to be silent about the situation. A few weeks
ago, this CO broke his leg during an exercise. When his civilian medical insurance plan
would not cover his medical costs, the CO submitted a claim to the military. Your
superior, also a Reserve Force officer signed off the Report of Injuries. However, your
superior, and many others, were well aware that the accident was a direct result of the
CO’s drunkenness at the time. You consider this information important. As you prepare
to forward this letter covering the report to higher authority, you notice that the signed
document has omitted this information. When you bring the issue to the attention of your
superior, he tells you its water under the bridge and to send the letter on its way. What
would you do? and Why?

.Annex C – Glossary 63
ANNEX C
GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY
The Glossary contains definitions of terms that are commonly used in the Defence Ethics
Program (DEP). It also defines some technical terms that are important in applied ethics
but are not commonly used in Defence or the Canadian government environment. The
more technical definitions in the field of ethics are flagged by an asterisk (*). Terms in
bold letters within a definition refer to terms that are defined in the glossary. The
definition of the terms in the Glossary is based mostly on sources from the literature in
the field of ethics. The following sources were particularly useful in producing the
definitions:
- Beauchamp, Tom L. Philosophical Ethics : An Introduction to Moral Philosophy

- Canto-Sperber, Monique. Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale
- Denise, Theodore, Nicholas White, Sheldon Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics
- Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory
- Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy
- Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations. (Canadian Forces
Leadership Institute)
- Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong
Care based ethics – A care-based approach to ethics gives priority to the humane
treatment that we are all owed as human beings while emphasizing the relationship
dimension of human interaction. It also stresses the need to factor into ethical decision
making the inequalities in power that are present in relationships in both the private and
the public spheres of life. (See Ethics of care*)
Competing values dilemma - The competing values dilemma represents a special case
of an ethical dilemma and involves a situation in which two or more ethical values
support competing options in an ethical decision making situation. For example, options
involving loyalty to others compete with options involving professional integrity.
Compliance ethics program

A compliance ethics program has at its core a rule-based ethics and represents a
legalistic approach to ethics. This type of program tends to develop elaborate and
comprehensive codes designed to deal with as many situations as possible and
emphasizes compliance with rules. It shows a preference for rules, regulations and
policies as a means of encouraging ethical behaviour. It is the dominant approach adopted
by the United States government through its Ethics in Government Act. (See
Deontology*)
Consequence-based ethics
A consequence-based approach to ethics gives priority to the value we attach to the
results of actions. It emphasizes that the effects of our actions on ourselves and others
tend to play an overriding role in ethical decision-making. It claims that we should assess
the probable good and bad effects of the different options open to us in a situation and use

these assessments as the basis for deciding what should or should not be done. (See
Utilitarianism*)
Cultural relativism*
Cultural relativists appeal to anthropological data indicating that moral rightness and
wrongness vary from place to place. They maintain that the concepts of rightness and
wrongness are contingent on cultural beliefs and that these concepts are meaningless
apart from the specific context in which they arise. They claim that patterns of culture can
only be understood as unique wholes and that moral beliefs about normal behavior are
closely connected in a culture. As a result, there are no absolute or universal moral
standards that could apply to all persons at all times. For the cultural relativist, a moral
standard is simply a cultural product. (T. Beauchamp)
Deontology*
The term derives from the Greek word for duty, deon. Deontology involves any ethical
system that centers on duty (e.g., truth telling, promise-keeping) to assess the ethical
values of action, as contrasted with ethical theories that appeal to a good end (See
Utilitarianism*) or right character (See Virtue ethics*).
♦Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depend
on whether they correspond to our duty or not. (Hinman)
♦Ethical systems that consider certain features in the moral act itself to have intrinsic
value. For example, for the deontologist, there is something right about truth telling, even
when it may cause pain or harm, and there is something wrong about lying, even when it
may produce good consequences. (Pojman)
DEP Ethical decision-making model

The DEP ethical decision-making model divides decision making into four stages:
recognition, judgement, intent to act, and behaviour. It identifies five categories of
factors that can be measured and that have been shown to influence ethical decision
making: individual values, individual ethical approaches, organizational ethical climate,
situational intensity, and individual moral development. The model was developed by the
Defence Ethics Program with the assistance of academic experts after an extensive
review of the literature. It serves as the basis for a periodic CF and DND wide survey.
Doctrine of double effect*

♦The doctrine holds that there is a morally relevant difference between intending evil
and foreseeing that it will occur as an unintended side effect of morally permissible acts.
Its purpose is to justify an action having good results but also having potentially harmful
effects. (Pojman)
♦The United States seems to have adopted a modification to the doctrine of double effect
so that one may undertake military operations aimed at legitimate objectives or targets
even though the operations will also have foreseeable “bad” consequences. Such
operations become permissible when they meet the following necessary criteria: (1) The
bad effect is unintended; (2) the bad effect is proportional to the desired military
objective; (3) the bad effect is not a direct means to the good effect (e.g., bomb cities to

encourage peace talks); and (4) actions are taken to minimize the foreseeable bad effects
even if it means accepting an increase risk to combatants. (Christopher)
Ethical decision-making
In the social and management sciences, ethical decision-making is treated as a decision
making process that includes ethical factors and gives them an overriding or constraining
role in all situations requiring decision and action. A basic decision making process is
considered to have a minimum of four stages: recognition, judgement, intention to act and
action. (See DEP Ethical decision-making model)
Ethical dilemma
A dilemma is a problematic situation for which there are two or more possible options to
resolve it, but where each of the options is considered either equally valid and desirable
or equally undesirable. In addition, there does not seem to be any other criteria available
for choosing between the options. It is useful to distinguish between three types of ethical
dilemmas: a) the uncertainty dilemma, b) the competing values dilemma, and c) the
harm dilemma.
Ethics
Ethics in the Defence Ethics Program is described as being concerned with: a)
determining right and wrong; b) defining the principles and obligations that govern right
action and practices of individuals and institutions in society; c) being a person of
integrity; and d) choosing to do what is right. The main approaches to ethics today that
are included in the DEP are: care based, consequence based, rule based, self-interest
based, virtue based, and a multiple-approach basis.
♦Ethics is a discipline that is long in tradition and rich in variety. Its development in
Western civilization has been subject to two main influences over the millennia: the
Greek tradition focusing on the “good life” and Judeo-Christian tradition stressing “doing
what is right”. These two traditions in combination with historical and cultural factors
have produced a multiplicity of ethical systems. In general, the discipline of ethics
involves: a) establishing the validity of an ideal of human character to be achieved,
ultimate goals to be striven for, and norms and standards for governing behaviour; b)
analyzing and explaining moral judgements and behaviour; and c) investigating and
clarifying the meanings of moral terms and statements. (Denise, White, Peterfreund)
Ethics of care*
An ethics of care has its roots in the work of feminist moral philosophers and, in
particular, has been strongly influenced by the work of Carol Gilligan on moral
development. It emphasizes the relational dimension of our lives and gives priority to the
humane treatment that we are all owed as human beings. An ethics of care focuses on
our responsibility for the well-being of others and ourselves and is keenly aware of the
inequalities of power that are present in virtually all relationships. It places a premium on
security from danger and harm. It is contrasted with a morality of justice emphasizing
fairness and equality, which proponents of the approach claim is a dominant
characteristic of ethical theories developed by male philosophers throughout the history
of western civilization. It is only recently that an ethics of care has become a widely used

basis for ethics in western societies. (Hinman; Ch. 10 contains an interview with Carol
Gilligan talking about voice and ethical theory and a detailed “Bibliographical Essay” on
the ethics of care and feminist moral theory.)
Ethos
Ethos can be described as the “characteristic spirit and beliefs of community, people,
system, literary work, or person”. Ethics is at the heart of this spirit and represents a core
subset of the beliefs. (See Military ethos)
Harm dilemma
The harm dilemma represents a special case of an ethical dilemma and involves a
situation in which every available option worked out in an ethical decision making
situation will cause harm or injury. For example, in military operations involving
destruction of strategic points, it is often inevitable to cause collateral damages. The
doctrine of double effect* has been used at times to justify morally taking action based
on one of the options.
Military Ethos
The military ethos embodies the spirit that binds the military profession together. It is a
living spirit that finds its full expression through the conduct of members of the
profession of arms. It clarifies how members view their responsibilities, apply their
expertise, and how they express their unique military identity. It establishes an ethical
framework for the professional conduct of all activities and military operations.
The uniquely Canadian military ethos is made up of three fundamental components:

beliefs and expectations about military service; Canadian values; and Canadian military
values. It affirms core notions of military service: unlimited liability, fighting spirit,
discipline and teamwork. It reflects that the legitimacy of the profession of arms in
Canada requires that it embody the same values and beliefs as the society it defends and
that the values of the profession must be in harmony with the values of that society. It
defines the subordination of the armed forces to civilian control and the rule of law.
Finally, the ethos places a special emphasis on the Canadian military values of duty,
loyalty, integrity, and courage.
Ultimately, it is the military ethos, incorporating fundamental Canadian values, that

differentiates a member of the Canadian profession of arms from ill-disciplined
irregulars, mercenaries or members of another armed force that lacks defining values.
(Chapters 1-2, Duty with honour . Ch. 2 contains a full and detailed articulation of the
military ethos.)
Multiple-Approach to Ethics (See Pluralist approach to ethics). The DEP has used
the expression ‘multiple-approach’ and the literature tends to use ‘pluralist approach’.
Pluralism*
The belief that there are multiple perspectives on an issue, each of which contains part of
the truth but none of which contain the whole truth. In ethics, moral pluralism is the

belief that different moral theories each capture part of the truth of the moral life, but
none of those theories has the entire answer. For example, an ethics of character [See
Virtue ethics*] must be completed by an ethics of action [See Deontology* and
Utilitarianism*]. For example, although we may possess the virtue of compassion, we
must both take into account the consequences of our compassionate actions and treat
other persons as ends in themselves when we exercise that virtue. On the other hand, an
ethics of action must also be completed by an ethics of character. For example, a person
with good character will not apply moral principles mechanically but will be sensitive to
the nuances of the situation. He or she will have developed a practical understanding of
life that allows one to balance the potentially competing concerns about rights, duty, and
consequences. (Hinman)
Pluralist approach to ethics

A pluralist approach to ethics acknowledges the reasonableness of a multiplicity of
approaches to ethics but does not give priority to any one of them. It treats the different
approaches to ethics as a network of checks and balances that may or may not be in
agreement. A pluralist approach to ethics argues that in some situations all approaches to
ethics may agree on the right course of action – for example, all would agree that the
torture of innocent children for fun is wrong. However, in other situations, individuals
must either individually or in a group work out the best approach to decide what they
should or should not do. Thus, in this perspective, disagreement may lead to a more
innovative way of dealing with a situation. A pluralist approach to ethical decision
making allows us to draw on one or a combination of approaches to ethics: care based,
consequence based, rule based, self-interest based, and virtue based. (see Pluralism*)
Positivism (legal positivism)*

Intending to oppose natural law theory, legal positivism denies any necessary
“connection between law and morality”. Some of its central theses among a loose cluster
are: (1) law is definable and explainable without moral and evaluative predicates or
presuppositions; (2) the law (for example, of England today) is identifiable from
exclusively factual sources (e.g. legislation, judicial precedence). Most versions
understand positive law as products of human will. Some versions of logical positivism
will go as far as to deny that there is knowable moral truth. (Oxford Companion to
Philosophy)
Preventative ethics program

A preventative ethics program adopts a two-prong approach to ethics: it combines a
strong rules based component with a related values based component. Typically, a
preventative program begins by identifying areas of organizational practice that are
considered to be exposed to high risks of non-compliance: for example, practices exposed
to fraud. To encourage ethical behaviour, the program emphasizes the importance both
of the rules, regulations and policies governing those practices and of the related ethical
values. A preventative approach served as the basis for the Australian Department of
Defence’s original Defence Ethics and Fraud Awareness Campaign (DEFAC) in 1991.

Prima facie*
The phrase derives from the Latin meaning “at first glance”. When used in the discussion
of an idea or a principle, it will imply that the idea or principle should be accepted as
valid until something leads us to reject it or to limit its scope.
♦In ethics, this phrase is usually associated with the concept of duty. A prima facie duty
has an initial presumption of obligation in its favour. It is a duty that is considered
binding but may, upon closer inspection, turn out to be overridden by other stronger
duties given a set of particular circumstances. (Hinman; Pojman)
Professional Ethic
The foundation of a professional ethic rests on a profession’s existing traditions and
values. Ethics tends to be understood in terms of the practices already present within the
profession and of the attitudes, reasoning, and actions of its members. Although a
professional ethic is open to change to address new issues, it tends to require that the
profession’s existing approach to ethics be the framework for all change. It typically
includes formal and informal codes expressing rules and standards governing the conduct
of members of a professional group: formal codes are written down and published in
some form and informal codes are perpetuated through training and example.
Rights
♦Rights are entitlements to do something without interference from other people
(negative rights) or entitlements that obligate others to do something positive to assist you
(positive rights). Some rights (natural rights, human rights) belong to everyone by nature
or simply by virtue of being human; some rights (legal rights) belong to people by virtue
of their membership in a particular political state; other rights (moral rights) are based in
acceptance of a particular moral theory. (Hinman)
♦A right is an entitlement to do, to demand, to enjoy, to be, to have done for us. Rights
may be rights to act, to exist, to enjoy, to demand. We speak of rights as being possessed,
exercised, and enjoyed. We also speak of our rights as being rights to – as in the rights to
life, liberty and happiness – not as rights against, as has so often mistakenly been
claimed. (T. Beauchamp)
♦In their strongest sense, rights are justified claims to the protection of persons’
important interests. When the rights are effective, this protection is provided as
something that is owed to persons for their own sakes. The upholding of rights is thus
essential for human dignity. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy)
Rule-based Ethics
A rule based approach to ethics gives priority to rules, regulations and policies as a means
of determining ethical behaviour. It assesses the right thing to do in a situation by
checking for a rule that addresses or covers the situation. The law is considered an
absolute in determining what should or should not be done. A rule-based ethics will
prefer programs that develop elaborate and comprehensive codes designed to deal with as
many situations as possible and emphasizes compliance with rules. It. (See II –
Deontology* and Utilitarianism*)

Self-interest based ethics

A self-interest approach to ethics stresses the importance of valuing ourselves and of self-
respect. However, this approach adopts a more radical stance when it gives priority to the
individual from the point of view of the individual’s own interest. A self-interest based
ethics advises individuals to be primarily concerned with how the outcome of a particular
decision might affect them personally.
Uncertainty Dilemma
The uncertainty dilemma represents the most general type of ethical dilemma. It refers
to a problematic situation where doing what is right is not clear because there are equally
valid reasons in support of the best two or more options worked out to resolve the
situation.
Utilitarianism*
♦Utilitarianism is an approach to morality that treats pleasure or desire-satisfaction as the
sole element in human good and that regards the morality of actions as entirely dependent
on consequences or results for human (or sentient) well-being. (Oxford Companion to
Philosophy)
♦The theory that the right action is one that maximizes utility. Sometimes utility is
defined in terms of pleasure (Jeremy Bentham), happiness (J.S. Mill), ideals (G.E. Moore
and H. Rashdall), or interests (R.B. Perry). Its motto, which characterizes one version of
utilitarianism, is “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Utilitarian further
divide into act- and rule–utilitarian. Act-utilitarians hold that the right act in a situation is
one that results (or is most likely to result) in the best consequences, whereas rule-
utilitarians hold that the right act is one that conforms to the set of rules that on the whole
will result in the best consequences (as compared with other sets of rules). (Pojman)
Values
Values are rooted in our culture and ways of life. They are part of the foundation upon
which moral reasoning is based and serve as guides for decisions and actions. Some
authors define them as enduring beliefs about what is considered to have important
worth. They draw a useful distinction between values as means to obtaining something
of worth (an instrument to an end) and values as something that is good in itself.
Values based ethics program

Values based ethics programs adopt a comprehensive approach to ethics: they combine a
comprehensive values based component with a related rules based component. They tend
to stress the principles and attitudes that support ethics in the institution, while
acknowledging the importance of the regulations, rules, and policies that are meant to
constrain discretionary judgement in specific situations. These programs tend to advocate
transparency and usually state publicly the set of values by which they propose to operate
and by which they accept to be judged. A values based approach has been adopted by the
Canadian Federal government and is the basis for the Defence Ethics Program.

Virtue Ethics*
♦One of the features of the concept of virtue is that it always requires some account of
certain features of social and moral life in terms of which it has to be defined and
explained. For example, virtue may be defined in terms of social roles or in terms of the
good life conceived as the goal of human action. (MacIntyre)
♦A theory of virtue ethics was first put forward by Aristotle as aretaic ethics. Arete is
from the Greek and means “goodness” [of function], “excellence” [of function] or
“virtue”. For Aristotle, the individual is essentially a member of a social unit and a moral
virtue is a habit of behaviour, a trait of character that is both socially and morally valued.
(T. Beauchamp)
♦For Aristotle, the basis of ethical assessment is character. Rather than concentrating on
the ethics of actions or duties, his understanding of ethics focuses on the character and
dispositions of the agent. Aretaic ethics emphasizes being a certain type of person who
will manifest who she or he is in appropriate actions. (Pojman)
Virtue based ethics

A virtue based approach to ethics gives priority to living a good life and to achieving
excellence. In as much as it requires ethical decision making be based on what we
achieve in life, a virtue-based approach has affinities with consequence-based ethics.
However, rather than attach value to the results of actions, as does a consequence-based
ethics, a virtue based approach focuses on the life-long goal to be achieved – being a
person of good character. It starts with the idea that a person of good character will strive
to do the right thing. Some of the virtues possessed by such a person are integrity,
courage, compassion, and a sense of justice. (see Virtue Ethics*)


Annex D – Bibliography 73
ANNEX D
BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTE. A number of books and videos on ethics are available at the Learning
and Career Centres (LCC) across Canada. Please contact the LCC in your area to arrange
for a short-term loan of desired ethics materials.
Government and Department of National Defence
An Ethical Relationship. (Ottawa ON: Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) & Chief of
Review Services/ Department of National Defence, 2003).
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Available from Heritage Canada.)
Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada (Kingston, ON: Canadian Forces
Leadership Institute, 2003).
Web: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/palm/palm_e.asp
Ethics in Practice: Proceedings of the Conference on Ethics in Canadian Defence,

Ottawa, 30-31 October 1997. (Ottawa ON: Department of National Defence/ Chief of
Review Services, 1997).
Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics. (Ottawa ON: Department of National

Defence/ Chief of Review Services, 1999).
Kernaghan, Kenneth. The Ethics Era in Canadian Public Administration. (Ottawa ON:
Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).
Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations (Kingston, ON: Canadian

Forces Leadership Institute, 2005).
Many Faces of Ethics in Defence: Proceedings of the Conference on Ethics in Canadian

Defence, Ottawa, 24-25 October 1996. (Ottawa ON: Department of National Defence/
Chief of Review Services, 1996).
Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. (Ottawa ON: Treasury Board of Canada
Secretariat, 2003). Web: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Available from Heritage Canada.)
General
Baier, Annette C. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics, (Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, 1994)
Beauchamp, Tom L. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. 2nd

edit.(New York: McGraw Hill, Inc..1991)

Blackburn, Pierre. L’éthique – fondements et problématique contemporaines. (ERPI Inc.

1996).
Canto-Sperber, Monique (éd.) Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale. (Paris :

Presse Universitaire de France, 1996).
Christopher, Paul. The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral
Issues. (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1994)
Denise, Theodore C., Nicholas P. White, Sheldon P. Peterfreund. Great Traditions in

Ethics. (Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, 2005)
Dworkin, Ronald. Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution.
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).
Fishkin, James S. The Limits of Obligations. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).
Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 3rd edit.

(Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003).
Honderich, Ted. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995)
Kant, Immanuel. The Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,
translated and analyzed by H.J. Paton, (Routledge, London, 1948)
Kekes, John. The Morality of Pluralism (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993)
Kernaghan K. & Langford, J. The Responsible Public Servant. (Toronto: The Institute of
Public Administration of Canada and Halifax and The Institute for Research on Public
Policy, 1990).
Kidder, R.M. How Good People Make Tough Choices : Resolving the Dilemmas of
Ethical Living. (New York: Firestone, 1995).
Métayer, Michel. La philosophie éthique : Enjeux et débats actuels. (ERPI Inc., 1997)
Gilligan, Carol, Janie V. Ward, and Jill M. Taylor, (eds.). Mapping the Moral Domain: A
Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological Theory and Education. (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, University of
Notre Dame Press, 1984)

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism: Text with Critical Essays, edit Samuel Gorovitz
(Indianapolis, IN, Bobbs Merrill, 1971)
--- On Liberty: Annotated Text, Sources and Background, edit. David Spitz (New
York, Norton, 1975)
Noddings, Nel. Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education

(New York, Teachers College Press, 2002)
Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 4th edit. (Belmont, Cal:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2002).
Rawls, John. “Justice as Reciprocity” (1971) in John Rawls: Collected Papers, Samuel
Freeman, edit., ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 190-224)
--- A Theory of Justice (London: Oxford University Press, 1971)
Rest, J. & Narvaez, D. (eds.). Moral Development in the Professions. (New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Pub., 1994).
Shay, J. Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. (New
York: Touchstone, 1994).
Thompson, Dennis F. Political Ethics and Public Office. (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press, 1987).
Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (New York,
Basic Books, 1983)
Videos
Ethics in the Workplace, (also in French – L’éthique en milieu de travail) VHS, 19 min
30 sec, Produced by the Defence Ethics Program, Chief Review Services, Ottawa. Art
Direction by ADM (PA). Updated March 2000. Cat. no.: 21-0748A. This video
provides a good introduction to some of the basic conceptual approaches to ethical
decision making. It also addresses some issues of conflict of interest in a public service
environment.
High Target (also in French - Viser haut), VHS, 57 min 58 sec, Produced by the Defence
Ethics Program, Chief Review Services, Ottawa. 1998. Cat. no: 21-0750A. This video
addresses values and ethics and issues of conflict of interest in a Canadian Forces military
environment.

Annex E – Contacts 77
ANNEX E
CONTACTS

Annex E – Contacts 78
LIST OF CONTACTS
DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM
(http://www.dnd.ca/ethics/index_e.asp)
Program Authority : Chief Review Services

(613) 992-7975
Director - Defence Ethics Program

(613) 996-0544
Program Management Research and Development

(613) 992-4717 (613) 992-7451
Program Management –2 Research and Development -2

(613) 995-7958 (613) 995-8846
Conflict of Interest Section

(613) 995-0229
DEP Chief Warrant Officer (CWO)

(613) 996-0527
Mailing Address: Facsimile: (613) 992-5763

Defence Ethics Program
Chief Review Services
National Defence Headquarters
9 Centre Block South
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa ON
K1A OK2
Resource Centre for the Defence Ethics Program
Books, videos, brochures, and posters on Defence ethics are available. For more information,
contact the DEP CWO at (613) 996-0527

Introduction To Defence Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Defence Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION TO DEFENCE ETHICS

PART I: ETHICS AND THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM 13

PART II: ETHICAL DECISION MAKING 33

PART III: CONCLUDING REMARKS 49

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Preface to 2nd Edition

(1) All material contained in the figures throughout the text;

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

If participants observe what they consider to be important omissions in the

Queries or comments on the in-course material, course delivery or course manual

DEP Web Site

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

CFITES - Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System - The

DAOD - Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - Defence Administrative

DND - Department of National Defence - In the National Defence Act, Section 3

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

PER - Personnel Evaluation Report - A Personnel Evaluation Report is a report that is

PO - Performance Objective - Performance Objectives are statements that specify what

TSD - Technical Services Detachment - Their mission is to provide Technical Services

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

- Know the main ideas involved in ethics as it applies to Defence;

As participants, it is expected that you will actively participate in guided

a. Sharing your agreement or disagreement with the syndicate / class; and

b. Expressing and constructively challenging alternative points of view.

Challenge the idea, not the person.

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Providing a definition of ethics in the public sphere that would be acceptable to

Taking these points into consideration, the Defence Ethics Program

a. Establishing the principles and obligations that govern the right

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

scope and is generally valued by individuals, societies, and humanity. In addition, a

To grasp what is involved in our definition of ethics, it may be helpful to imagine

A DEMOCRATIC NATION AND ETHICS

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Respect for human dignity

The idea expressed by the principle of basic equality is so fundamental to our

To understand our use of the expression “equality in dignity”, it may help to

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Inequalities may also result from legitimate limitations imposed by society on

There is a presumption in a democratic society that everyone must be treated

In conclusion, the very nature of a democracy provides us with a source of ethical

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Two Spheres of Ethics

CF members & DND employees

Ethics and the Private Sphere

Whenever members of the CF or employees of DND act as individuals outside

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

Ethics and the Public Sphere

All actions related to positions at any level of government (local, municipal,

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

ETHICS FOR DEFENCE

A Values Based Program

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

To ensure a common policy approach on subjects that should similarly

Values & Ethics: Common Application

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives

Respect for human dignity

¾Canadian Society Operations

¾Transparency Strategic Person