Prudence

 

An essential aspect of Toner's belief in being a moral individual, that is, doing what one ought to do, is the application of knowledge to differentiate between right and wrong. With life experiences and study, an individual achieves a better understanding of how the world works and how societies function. Through reflection, we can establish a set of principles and values that guide our actions in proper ways. At any particular time, the wise or prudent individual will assess their situation and understand what they should do. Doing what one should do is learned through experience and taught by trusted mentors, parents, teachers, friends, colleagues, etc. Often, however, the most important lessons are learned through hardship.

 

Genuine wisdom or prudence, I fear, comes to us, much as Aeschylus wrote, not in the homely sayings found at the bottom of pages in slick magazines, but through suffering. Prudence is purchased at a high price. We learn to be prudent through the heartaches and afflictions of living… (Pg 66)

 

In the discussion of ethics, most people can engage in good, moral, and just actions when the situation easily allows the individual to do so. When you know what you should be doing, actually doing it can produce a sense of contentment, even happiness, because conforming with our internal logic is an evolved survival mechanic. If you assess a problem, taking actions that align with what you should do to alleviate that problem improves your chances of survival. In the case of ethics, we are looking at the individual's survival within a social setting and aligning with what a person believes they should do concerning others: honesty, integrity, charity, selflessness, etc., to be viewed favorably. Seeing someone needing help and being able to render that help can make us feel good for that very reason. On the opposite side of the spectrum, to avoid feeling bad, we don't engage in activities that are bad, immoral, or unjust because that would make us perceived within society unfavorably.

 

The ancient Greeks declared that happiness consists in using our talents as they ought to be used. The shovel can cut; the knife can dig. But a shovel is not a cutting tool, and a knife is not a digging tool. Humans can impair their reason by drink or drugs, and we can lie, cheat, and steal. But we are “designed” to develop and to use our reason and to be honest. In doing what we should, we bring about our happiness. When I say that ethics is about “owing,” that is a shorthand way of saying that knowing and doing what is true results in our happiness. (Pg 67)

 

The problem with prudence is twofold; it has to be learned, and it implies a shared understanding of right and wrong. The first aspect should be apparent: young people with limited experiences, those without hardships, and those in unfamiliar situations may have difficulty determining what should be done. Specific actions may be seen as unethical within one culture but not your own, and even though you do what is expected of your people, you get punished by theirs. The second aspect comes from people's perceptions of precisely what should be done in a given situation, as experiences may teach different lessons and, in turn, shape people's concepts of right and wrong differently. But this leads us to our understanding of the following cardinal virtue.

 

Justice

 

The wisdom provided by prudence drives our understanding of the other cardinal virtues, and in the case of justice, it helps inform us of our obligations to others. Doing the right things and avoiding doing the wrong things in our everyday lives can be seen as morally correct. In a professional setting, these rights and wrongs differ slightly in relation to morals because there are professional and social expectations of proper conduct that come into play. Legal and regulatory requirements placed upon an individual or an organization change the moral dynamic into something unique: ethics. But both morals and ethics, internal and external compulsions to do what is right, are not about knowing what you ought to do, as is in prudence, but what you should do.

 

But the word “should” implies that there are things we must do, things that we have a duty to do. Ignore those basic duties, we can reason, and we will bear the burden of ethical failure and moral cowardice. But what duties are “basic”? There are principles or prescriptions regarded by some as prima facie (immediately plain or clear)… But any prima facie duty is a requirement only if there is no stronger prima facie duty. When duties conflict - and the conflict of duties is the very basis of military ethics - we must do what best satisfies all our obligations. This, in turn, is a function of judgment. [This], in essence, is that justice (doing what is right) is a matter of prudence. (Pg 78-79)

 

Toner speaks of what he calls "dueling duties" and that this is the heart of most ethical quandaries within the military. For professional militaries, we are compelled to follow the laws of war and armed conflict, reduce non-combatant casualties when possible, and only engage military targets. In this case, non-combatants are not intentionally killed or injured but are collateral to the actual targets that we want to engage. Additionally, ethics compels military personnel to support the mission of the organization above themselves and to safeguard the lives of their brothers and sisters-in-arms. Given these ethical considerations, dueling obligations can come into play on the battlefield when we can engage a target, such as a building housing enemy fighters but they are in close proximity to non-combatants. On the one hand, we can accomplish the mission and safeguard our personnel by bombing the target, but non-combatants are likely to be killed and injured. On the other hand, we do a direct ground assault, which allows our personnel to engage the enemy fighters in close combat precisely but risk suffering our own casualties to prevent non-combatant casualties. In addition, dead or injured buddies weaken the organization, making future mission accomplishment more difficult due to reduced combat power.

 

Courage

​

For Toner, applying courage implies continuously sticking to one's own moral principles in the face of external pressures that might compel them to deviate. Extenuating circumstances, in the eyes of the law and society, may forgive an individual for forgoing ethics if not doing so puts them at severe risk. However, doing an unethical act for fear of a negative outcome could be seen as cowardly behavior, such as pushing others out of the way to be the first to escape a burning building. While the law and society don't require someone to suffer or die for others, we do have professions whose ethics require them to assume additional risk. Military personnel obviously have to consider risks in the prosecution of their duties, including first responders. Still, even school teachers are expected to assume additional risks in protecting their students in the case of fires, natural disasters, and active shooters. Failure to act ethically in such matters could be seen as a dereliction of duties.

 

But one brave act does not make a person courageous. For Toner, courage is a pattern of action throughout one’s life. In regards to a person who leaps in front of a car to save a child, he states: 

 

He deserves great praise for doing a noble deed, but the single, unreflective act does not necessarily indicate the sustained quality of courage. Courage is character in action; it is a pattern; it is a settled disposition formed, fashioned, and developed over many years… Courage is not episodic but enduring; it is not a note but a melody; it is not a matter of a heroic minute but of a gallant life. (Pg 110)

 

Society benefits from individuals who can be relied on to do a good and noble thing when it is needed the most. A nation depends on its military to defend and protect its interests against threats, and as a result, it will put its personnel in positions where courage may be required to push through adversity to accomplish the mission. If society can nurture a culture that promotes bravery in the face of adversity, thereby fostering courage.

 

Temperance

 

Temperance is about self-control. In the face of easy access to the enjoyable things in life: food, alcohol, sex, and leisure, avoiding indulging in these to excess not only speaks volumes as to the strength of will of the individual but also to their reliability and trustworthiness. Even the greatest saints of society have their temptations, their lapses into vice, but the person who can avoid slipping in this manner can be seen as more reliable than those who can't control themselves. They are more fit, physically and mentally, to accomplish tasks, meet objectives, and support their organizations than those easily swayed.

 

What we continually do is what we essentially are; correlatively, what we essentially are will express itself in what we continually do. The officer who is a personal degenerate either is, or will soon become, a professional degenerate. (Pg 137)

 

For the military, we are one of the few professions that punish private behavior. The private sector professionals, brokers, doctors, carpenters, etc., can be skilled and competent in their jobs, but when off the clock, they indulge in adultery and alcoholism. As long as they have sobered up and don't let their private life hedonism get in the way of their performance, they are viewed as acceptable. As long as the private stays private, many businesses can function effectively, and the individual can perform. But Toner believes that the private doesn't truly stay private because the impulses that drive an individual to behave immorally and lack restraint will eventually manifest themselves in a professional setting at the organization's expense and the detriment of the individual and all that work with them.

 

Military commanders, by regulation, have to be aware of their personnel's private lives to some extent. They conduct wellness checks on their barracks and homes to ensure they are not living in squalor. They are one of the first to be contacted in case someone makes the blotter for military police and local law enforcement. Excessive drunkenness or driving while under the influence of alcohol is punishable. Committing adultery is punishable. Being overweight is punishable, though the unit will assist in getting weight under control up to a point. Unlike much of the private sector, you are a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coast Guardsmen, or Guardian at all times, whether in uniform or not. This is not only to avoid besmirching these service members' respective Services but also because the nature of the military requires a certain level of readiness to be able to respond to the needs of the nation and communities. The enemy won't wait for you to sober up, and natural disasters won't delay their destruction of civilian lives for your hangover to go away.

 

There is an ultimate criterion by which to judge private tastes and personal actions: combat readiness and combat effectiveness. The profession of arms exists to deter and, if necessary, to wage and win wars. Actions of service members that detract from that imperative are intolerable. Drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, and similar sins - I will not shy away from the term - substantially depreciate and decrease combat readiness. Thus, their prosecution is not a matter of a commander’s “religious agenda” but of his legal responsibility to ensure that his command is ready for combat or for combat support operations. (Pg 139)