Collision of ethical systems in Twelve O’Clock High (1949)
From left to right: Lt. Zimmerman, Col. Davenport, Gen. Savage, Gen. Drummond
We’re wrapping up our sixth day of Strategic Thinking, a course in metacognition; that is to say, “thinking about thinking.” So far we’ve looked at critical thinking, creative thinking, systems thinking, and culture frameworks. This morning will be my first crack at chairing a session. Today we’ll look at ethical reasoning.
By the norms of academe, the Army War College is a bit odd in that instructors are obliged to execute a lesson plan created by someone else, with the conceptual approach, learning objectives, and most of the readings already locked in. Quite a contrast to the virtual blank check given most professors in designing their courses. But given the unique mission of the AWC, the approach basically makes sense. Even so, the instructor tasked with the lesson has a degree of freedom as long as he “stays in his lane” and observes his “left and right limits.” (Trust me: I’m learning and internalizing militaryspeak at such a rate that pretty soon I’ll be talking like a total wannabe.)
The learning objectives are the only part truly carved in stone. Addressed to the students, they read:
a. Improve your reflective analytical skills in the realm of ethics, to provide a foundation for self-directed learning throughout the year and in future assignments.
b. Recognize and comprehend some common pitfalls in ethical reasoning in order to avoid making them in your own deliberations and decisions.
c. Strengthen your ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of contending ethical arguments.
I’ve decided to kick off the discussion by showing the students a 12 minute clip from Twelve O’Clock High in which a colonel, two generals, and a hapless lieutenant argue about what has gone wrong with the 918th Bombing Group, which has suffered higher losses than its sister groups despite being under what everyone acknowledges as a first-rate commander (Col. Davenport). Davenport argues vigorously that the high command (Gen. Drummond and Gen. Savage) have reduced flesh-and-blood air crews to numbers and are pushing them to the breaking point. He also attributes the high loss rate to “our stinking luck”: an array of factors beyond anyone’s control.
Savage is a friend of Davenport’s but when he hears this tirade from Davenport, he elects not to keep it to himself but shares it with the top dog, Gen. Drummond, together with the observation that the problem with the 918th Bomber Group is its commander. Davenport “over identifies” with his men to the point where he values their lives over the accomplishment of the mission.
Gen. Drummond can scarcely believe this, but credits Savage’s appraisal enough to visit Davenport’s headquarters. Even in the combined presence of Drummond and Savage, Davenport sticks to his guns. Drummond refuses to believe in “luck.” He tries to dissect a recent failed mission. Davenport obfuscates, but a young navigator — Lt. Zimmerman — steps forward to explain, courageously and convincingly, that the mission failed because he made a critical mistake while serving as the group’s lead navigator. Zimmerman is thanked by Drummond and dismissed, after which Drummond and Savage pressure Davenport to relieve Zimmerman and get a better navigator — “the one thing we don’t have a shortage of is good navigators,” Savage observes. Davenport refuses. He doesn’t believe in firing a man for one mistake. He also fears that the experience of being fired will destroy Zimmerman (which, as events reveal, it literally does). At that point Drummond opines that Davenport has reached his breaking point, orders him to let the flight surgeon give him a drug that will make him sleep 24 hours, and then report to headquarters for reassignment.
Before the film clip, I’ll ask the students to watch it with the learning plan’s three categories of ethical principles, theories and issues:
Teleological considerations (beneficial and harmful consequences of alternative actions)
Deontological considerations (distinct from the consequences of actions and personal character)
Aretaic considerations (personal character, dispositions, attitudes)
Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 (coming)
