Ethical decisions are based largely on intuitions we have about the nature of morality. For some of us, intuition might tell us that the consequences or outcomes of our actions are what matter most. Others might think that adherence to a rule or duty (things that come before we ever act) is what is morally relevant when deciding to do or not do something. Moral intuitions like these in turn become basic principles, or guidelines, we enact everyday when deciding, choosing, and doing.
To get us thinking about ethics, morality, and how both influence the things we do (or don’t do), let’s consider the following thought experiment.
Imagine that you are living in Poland during World War II. A good friend comes to your house and asks if she can hide in your basement. She tells you that the enemy has discovered that she is working for the Resistance and will be shot if found. You agree and let her hide in your basement. Now, about an hour later, you hear a knock on your door – several soldiers are there asking if your friend is inside. The soldiers state that if your friend is inside, you must send her out.
What would you do? Lie and save your friend, or tell the truth and send your friend to their death? In responding, think about a general principle that would explain your course of action and guide you in your decision making. For example, is the safety/happiness of your friend most important? Is not lying most important? Is doing what is in your own self-interest most important?
Please stay within the parameters of the prompt and avoid adding in additional information or questions (for example, “Why am I in WWII Poland anyway?”). The point is to get your intuitions going, not side step the issue…
iscuss about the comparison between the organization cultural of military forces between the British army that help in counterinsurgency of Malaysia(Malaya) and U.S Army that help in Vietnam War. The organization culture can be defined as a decisive determinant in their effectiveness and hence help to determine the course of international politics. In simple words, the organization cultural of military forces can be defined as the ability of military organization to adapt or to change whether that change occurs in military technology and in the structure of the international system. This organization cultural are one of the main component of state’s ability to guarantee their own security and their allies. The point that will be discuss is about the evaluating the literature on military innovation. As for the British Army, the civilian leaders in Britain which had institutional incentives to act as a unit that had an easier time agreeing for both policy goals and oversight options to ensure that the British army followed these goal that been framed by the leader’s. By setting these goals, the British army will react more flexibility to change their mind set same as the civilian leader’s goals. In contra, as for the U.S Army, the civilian leaders in the United State army which have an institutional incentive to act separately and found it harder to agree on policy goals which often to choose more complex oversight mechanism and did not always induce the U.S Army to respond easily. Besides that, the British army officer’s response directly with their political master cabinet which this will create a improve way of flexible military. As for the American system, the military has the ability to “trade off” demands that made by the congress that against the president. From the argument that been elaborate, we can conclude that different in political system of the government will led the nation’s politicians to create different militaries. Besides, the critical independent variable is not the nature of the national government which has the most cases that has a little impact on which policies the military to adopt but it is the organization culture of the military institution that determine whether innovation of the military will succeed or fail for each country. The other point of comparison for this paragraph is