However, their argument concerns society as a whole with a specific focus on individuals. Looking at the military requires a much different perspective. In the military, personal freedoms come after the preservation of order and the execution of the mission. These preceding objectives require rules that are uniform and morally unambiguous. But while they don’t fall under the logic of Mill or Hart, the reasoning as to why the rules are there also does not fall in line with Devlin. He believes that morality should be legislated in order to preserve society. He derives what these morals are from whatever the “common belief” is (Devlin 1959). Conversely, the military divorces the idea between an individual’s morals and the collective morals of the organization. The purpose of morality in the military isn’t to preserve society; it’s to enable itself to perform at the highest possible level when dealing with grave matters unique to itself as an organization. So, whilst the end result may mirror Devlin’s desired outcome, the reasoning why is substantially …show more content…
The power to kill is conferred solely to them. Indeed, it is often times their primary mission. The ability for there to be internal trust, integrity, and self-responsibility amongst the soldiers is crucial to the success of the organization. And on the other hand, there exists an underlying moral dilemma between upholding their moral principles, executing the mission, and executing the will of the people. Many countries around the world have militaries that routinely commit atrocities, take over democratically elected governments, or abuse their powers. It is clearly evident the need for a set of moral codes in an organization which is granted as much power as the military is. And as the famous moralist Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts