Name two ethical frameworks commonly considered in military decision making.

Name two ethical frameworks commonly considered in military decision making.

• A. Virtue ethics and relativism
• B. Deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics
• C. Egoism and contractualism
• D. Pragmatism and nihilism

Answer: (B)

In military decision making, two widely considered frameworks are deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics. Deontology focuses on duties, rules, and obligations—actions are judged by whether they align with moral norms and laws, regardless of outcomes. This is essential in the military for upholding international law, rules of engagement, and the responsibilities of the chain of command, ensuring actions are morally permissible because they are the right duties to follow. Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, evaluates actions by their consequences, aiming to maximize overall good and minimize harm. This matters in mission planning and risk assessment where leaders must weigh trade-offs, determine the best overall impact, and consider civilian safety and mission success. Using both frameworks together gives a balanced approach: follow clear duties and legal/ethical standards, while also considering the practical outcomes and potential harm of decisions. The other pairings don’t align as consistently with how military leaders are trained to analyze and justify actions, since they focus less on established duties or the broad consequences that shape mission ethics.

In military decision making, two widely considered frameworks are deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics. Deontology focuses on duties, rules, and obligations—actions are judged by whether they align with moral norms and laws, regardless of outcomes. This is essential in the military for upholding international law, rules of engagement, and the responsibilities of the chain of command, ensuring actions are morally permissible because they are the right duties to follow.

Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, evaluates actions by their consequences, aiming to maximize overall good and minimize harm. This matters in mission planning and risk assessment where leaders must weigh trade-offs, determine the best overall impact, and consider civilian safety and mission success.

Using both frameworks together gives a balanced approach: follow clear duties and legal/ethical standards, while also considering the practical outcomes and potential harm of decisions. The other pairings don’t align as consistently with how military leaders are trained to analyze and justify actions, since they focus less on established duties or the broad consequences that shape mission ethics.