Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations

[Jarnhamar]

I'm glad the Maple Leaf isn't afraid to tackle the BIG ethical issues.

Check this zinger out.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6513

Ethically, what would you do?
Not everyone speaks the same language


It’s mid-morning on Monday. Three colleagues—Julie Paré, Jean Roussy and Major Andy Snowe—are having coffee in the NDHQ cafeteria. It’s a working coffee break because they plan to discuss how last week’s one-day conference, organized by Maj Snowe, was received by the conference participants.

Maj Snowe, speaking in French, asks Julie and Jean what they thought about the conference. Julie says, “Well, people seemed really interested in the subject matter, and the discussion groups also seemed to go well enough.” She pauses and then continues, “But, I heard a couple people complaining about the lack of French.”

Maj Snowe nods his head. “Regrettably, I’ve received many complaints, including a few from Anglophones, about the fact that the conference was held virtually only in English. I know they have a point – there should have been more French, especially since the conference was held in Ottawa where English and French are languages of work.”

He continues in an emotional tone. “But, the complainants have no idea how difficult it is to get technical speakers in both languages.” He pauses to take a breath and then says, “Plus, it would have been impossible to get all the material translated in the time I was given to put this together.”

At a nearby table, Maj Geneviève Morneault, Captain Alain Francoeur—both newly posted to Ottawa—and Philippe Cousineau overhear the comments made by Maj Snowe and Ms. Paré. Looking at one another, they quickly realize that the conference being discussed is the one they had all attended the week before. They all shake their heads in unison.

“So, that’s how it works at NDHQ.” Capt Francoeur says, somewhat frustrated. “It’s a good thing you were with us, Philippe, to translate some of the difficult parts.”

“You know,” Maj Morneault says to her two friends, “I had actually heard that the use of both languages had improved in Ottawa.”

From a defence ethics point of view, what would you tell these two groups of people?

 

[ArmyRick]

I says "pardon?" Huh? What the??? Seriously, this is the ethical issue they come up?

 

[pbi]

I'm sorry-this isn't an "ethical question". This is what I was explaining to Technoviking about the puerile nature of what passes for "ethics education" in the minds of some people at "the Centre".

I've worked at  both CFC and CLFCSC where as bilingual staffs we struggled with the best of intent to meet the mandate to be bilingue in presentation. The truth is that many of the most valuable, current and topical speakers don't speak French, especially Americans and Brit, but including several other nationalities. Sorry, but there you go. So what do you do-go for second rate speakers just to meet the language requirement? Or (in an age of increasing penny-pinching...) pay a whole hell of a lot more to fly somebody from France/Belgium (assuming that the right speaker is even available there?) You can try simultaneous translation, but again you have to have the people and the headset system.

And as for translation of material...puh-leeez! The translation system is a backlogged mess. Although the translators that I have known and worked with are very dedicated, hard-working people, there are not nearly enough of them. At both CFC and especially at CLFCSC we frequently had to issue course material "French to follow" because these good folks could not keep up with the volume, and much of it had to be contracted out.

This has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with ethics, and everything to do with practical matters. This, IMHO, is asinine.

Cheers

 

[vonGarvin]

From a defence ethics point of view, what would you tell these two groups of people?

I'd tell both groups to sum the fuck up.  Yes, Ottawa is a bilingual city, and yes, the CF has TWO official languages, but given that we have people getting shot at daily, blown up, etc, it is imperative that we get our work out on the street as fast as humanly possible, and worry about Bill 101 after the fact.  So, if the TF/Flotilla/Squadron in question is French, then we do it in French first, and let the English follow in a less hasty manner.  If you don't like it, sum up your career and then make some PY space for people who matter  :rage:


Anyway, there is a ton of good discussion in this thread.  I'm not going to sully this one post with good discussion because that stupid "example" is just that: stupid.

 

[vonGarvin]

I would say we are talking about some tricky and very "grey" issues. It is very easy to say "we would never and should not allow X action to ever take place..."

But then what happens when the situation becomes very complicated? Look at the "We don't torture" principle and then if we are ever in a position where torturing one person may save the lives of many more, do we justify it?

We would justify other forms of sacrifice in other situations. Lets say there is a rescue boat, they only have time to save 1 of 2 boats sinking. On boat A, is 10 people and Boat B, is 1 person. The obvious answer is to say, lets rescue the many and if at all possible, rescue the one after that. In my scenario, we will just say that if you rescue Boat A, Boat B has sunk and the person has drowned. So in that sense, we have had to make a decision to allow one person life to end but we saved many more. To quote Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".

So in one sense it would be OK, to sacrifice someone and save others. But in a torture scenario, its a really risky idea to impede one's rights to potentially save many others. Although if your Jack Bauer, torture is a skill set not a forbidden act.

On the flip side, if we do torture one to save many, when we do stop justifying torture (Do you set a trend?) and what are the standards/limits for it?

Kind of a tricky way to look at it? My head hurts thinking this much. I would also add in that life is rarely black and white but it is many shades of grey.

First of all, this is an awesome post: MilPoints to follow.
So, "never do 'x', because 'x' is wrong: always!" is something that Immanuel Kant would say, and there is some merit to it, for the very reasons you illustrate.  If you allow 'x' once, well, who's to say that we can't do it again?  Therein lies that dangerous and slippery slope.
As for the Spock Principle, this is more commonly known as Utilitarianism.  There are many "versions" or "takes" on it, but the quick and dirty is that the greater good for the greater number is how things "ought" to be.  Our nation is definitely not "utilitarian", for we are a liberal democracy, where "numbers" don't matter as much as individual justice.  If we were a utilitarian society, then whenever there were a choice between the will of the majority vs that of the minority, the majority would win every time.

That slope is dangerous, indeed, and once you start down it, it's hard to return!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Anyway, there is a ton of good discussion in this thread.  I'm not going to sully this one post with good discussion because that stupid "example" is just that: stupid.

Just pointing out there seems to be a difference of opinion on what important ethical debates are 

 

[KevinB]

At the end of the day to me it comes down to a mathematical formula

We can do X if Y = Z

The Israelis have a number of non combatants that can be killed in a strike for a HVT.  If non combatants = greater than the number, then the strike as aborted.

When your national identity is at stake, there are things you must do to survive, the balancing act is ensuring you do not become the enemy while destroying him...

 

[Greymatters]

I'm sorry-this isn't an "ethical question". This is what I was explaining to Technoviking about the puerile nature of what passes for "ethics education" in the minds of some people at "the Centre".

Agree with PBI, this is not an ethics question.  If your top experts is the field are English speakers then you go with English, if the top experts speak French then they go with French.  Thats supposed to be the advantage of being bilingual, the ability to be understood in more than one language.  This example makes bilungualism look more like an anchor, with subtle and pitiful moaning about 'why isnt it in French?'  If anything Im surprised they didnt include a complaint in the example that at least 25% of the conference speakers should have been women and visible minorities. 

What is sad is that this example is very true in life.  I encountered several cases where it didnt matter how important the Intelligence you provided was - the recipient refused to look at it or listen to it unless it was in their primary language, even though they had adequate secondary language skills, or that a person was standing by willing to translate anything too complicated.  This was true not only of language, but also of elements, where Army types didnt want to hear from Air Force types, and Navy types didnt want to hear from Army types. 

 

 

[vonGarvin]

I would offer that the ethical dillemma in this case isn't "how do I make sure I put shit in the right language", but "is it ethical to delay critical information/refuse to work because it's not in my choice language"?


How's that for a spin, because it's true.  If I am presented something in French (which I am often), I don't stamp my feet and demand it be "anglicised", instead, I read it and ask for clarification if there is doubt about whether or not I correctly understand it.

 

[TimBit]

What is sad is that this example is very true in life.  I encountered several cases where it didnt matter how important the Intelligence you provided was - the recipient refused to look at it or listen to it unless it was in their primary language, even though they had adequate secondary language skills, or that a person was standing by willing to translate anything too complicated.  This was true not only of language, but also of elements, where Army types didnt want to hear from Air Force types, and Navy types didnt want to hear from Army types. 

Both of which are pathetic and sad. But then, if your mission goes to poop, you can always mull from your early retirement how that "Chair Force" guy might somehow still have gotten the intelligence right... (not laughing at the Air Force just underlining the irony here...)

 

[OldSolduer]

I would offer that the ethical dillemma in this case isn't "how do I make sure I put crap in the right language", but "is it ethical to delay critical information/refuse to work because it's not in my choice language"?


How's that for a spin, because it's true.  If I am presented something in French (which I am often), I don't stamp my feet and demand it be "anglicised", instead, I read it and ask for clarification if there is doubt about whether or not I correctly understand it.

My pea brain tells me that critical information that may effect the outcome of an operation must go to the decision makers ASP, whether its in English, French or Martian.