Moral Relativism In The Military

With the upcoming presidential election, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) released guidance on communication with presidential campaign for all members of the United States Military and department of Defense (DoD). This guidance creates restrictions on what military members can and cannot do or say in regards to politics, which creates potential dilemmas in ethical decision making. Social media creates new issues not seen in most previous elections, as members can, and should, not post anything politically related in regards to politics. Although the right to speak freely is given in the First Amendment of the Constitution, Military members hold a distinct position of power, which can easily be abused to influence the general public, …show more content…
“Moral Relativism is the idea that the truth of a moral judgment or principle is dependent upon and relative to its acceptance by some person or a group of persons” (Rubel 25). According to this system, the beliefs of one member of the military may not, and likely does not, equate to the beliefs of all, or even a majority, of the military. The theory of relativism distinguishes the necessary difference between morals and regulations of military personnel compared to the civilian world, which further demonstrates the need to separate personal views from military views. In the civilian world, it is generally accepted to openly discus your political beliefs, and, in general, your profession holds little weight in your influence of others. Since the deviation of morals is accepted in the moral relativity theory, it can be commonly accepted that a military member will be on a level of higher morals. This obvious distinction can lead to the persuasion of society to conform to political beliefs campaigned by military …show more content…
The three tests, or questions to be asked, are: “Could it become Universal Law?” “Does it treat people as an end not merely as a means?” “could the maxim be willed by you and agreed upon by everyone as moral law for the community?” (Rubel 164-165). In the case of DoD personnel discussing political topics while affiliating with the DoD, it can be seen that two of the three categorical imperatives are not met. In some cases, the individual could be using people as a means rather than an end, by influencing them to push their own political agendas. Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that all members of society would be willing to agree that individuals in high power position should be able to discuss their own political views as a potential means of influence, making the maxim fail the third categorical imperative. Although this answer may be seen as ambiguous to some, all three of the imperatives must be accepted for the action to be considered morally acceptable, making this scenario