U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael Croft, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. (May 25, 2007) – The Marine Corps’ newest second lieutenants take the oath of office during the Class of 2007 graduation and commissioning ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Stadium in Annapolis, Md., May 25. Of the 1,028 graduating midshipmen, 213 became Marine Corps officers, while 791 were commissioned as navy ensigns. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen and Asst. Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert Magnus delivered the oaths of office for their respective services. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael Croft (RELEASED)

In last month’s “Front and Center,” we encountered Josef Pieper’s definition of virtues as “perfected abilities,” and thus the important virtue of prudence is the perfected ability to take right decisions. Pieper worked within a tradition of thought that has its sources in the works of Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) and of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 A.D.), and within this tradition the word “perfect” means “fully developed,” having no unrealized potential. Of course, the perfected abilities called virtues are perfected human abilities and so virtues are fully developed within the kind of creatures we human beings are. Immanuel Kant famously asserted that out of the crooked timbre of humanity no straight thing was ever made. However lyrical this statement is it seems Kant overstated the case since our history is graced with exceptional human beings who, like all human beings, are capable of making mistakes. The word “perfected” should not be taken to mean that one possessing a perfected ability is immune from making a mistake in the application of the ability. Rather, when we are born, the abilities that are natural to human beings lie within us as potential yet to be realized. An ability that has been “perfected” has been raised to such a level of conscious skill as to be integral to one’s character. Pieper’s effort to arrive at a concise definition of virtue was part of a vital effort within the disciplines that study human nature, human character, and human action, to seek ever clearer understandings of the elements of human intellectual and moral nature the development of which are essential to a good and happy life and to a coherent culture. The ongoing need to clarify fundamental concepts is the result of philosophical, cultural, and technological changes over time that tend to obscure in the minds of many people just what prudence, justice, courage, and temperance, and other virtues, require of us in practice in the present moment.

The Marine Corps publishes a document titled “Marine Corps Values: A User’s Guide for Discussion Leaders” that uses this method of investigation of defining key terms and then taking people through practical exercises that help them understand what these key terms mean when applied in action.[i] At the beginning of a section titled “Right-vs-Wrong,” the document provides definitions of the terms right, wrong, culture, sub-culture, morality, morals, and ethics, before going through practical exercises wherein the definitions are applied. In what follows, we will discuss the definitions the Marine Corps uses, and subsequently consider practical exercises.

https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/ra2studio?mediatype=photography. Stock photo ID:899346734

“Right” is defined as an “ethical or moral quality that constitutes the ideal of moral propriety and involves various attributes, such as adherence to duty; obedience to lawful authority, whether divine or human; and freedom from guilt.” Consistent with the title of the section, the word “right” is understood as a quality of one’s actions, right v. wrong, rather than as a natural property of human beings such as the rights to life, liberty, and property. The concept of a right act being free from guilt means that the act violates no natural or consensually accepted moral obligations. A right act is not morally blameworthy. The element of this definition that recognizes right acts as conforming with lawful duty, whether divine or human, is interesting in that it appears to bring with it an obligation to understand, and to understand amid changing circumstances, what constitutes lawful authority and obedience to it. For example, upon entering a branch of military service, whether enlisted or officer, members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Can someone who has taken this oath fulfill it adequately if he doesn’t know what is in the Constitution, or does the oath carry within it the implicit obligation to read the Constitution? Here we run into the reality that in order to understand what right action requires in any set of circumstances, and to do it without hesitation, one must be in the habit of working to develop his mind and will, since these are the qualities of a human being that understand and act.

“Wrong” is defined as “[s]omething that is immoral or unethical such as, Principles (sic), practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, or equity, or to laws accepted as having divine or human sanction.” A very interesting feature of this definition is that, in explaining what is meant by a wrong act, it is assumed that we know what are meant by “justice, goodness, or equity.” Of course, this is a guide for discussion leaders so we may assume… READ MORE