This assessment evaluates student mastery of the Program’s first three competencies which were
covered in Sessions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. Students should apply appropriate course concepts in
a concise and coherent manner when crafting their answer. This assessment is not intended to be
a research project, but rather a short essay that:
a) Demonstrates comprehension of Program concepts and the ability to critically
examine the linkages between them.
b) Reinforces the learning process through a practical application of ideas and concepts.
c) Demonstrates mastery of the Program competencies being evaluated.
Student responses should be no more than 750 words in length and submitted as a Microsoft Word
file that is double spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1-inch margins. Additional
guidance may be provided by the professor.
This Summative Assessment can be completed using open book and open notes. The student
may consult any of the readings, slides, videos, or Program resources while completing their
response. Submissions must be entirely the student’s own work. Assistance in any form from
anyone, other than the student’s professor, is unauthorized. For specific policies please see
section 9.4 and 10 in the Program syllabus.
Footnotes, endnotes, and a bibliography are not required. Parenthetical citations will be used for
direct quotes or paraphrasing to give appropriate credit to their original author. If there is a question
about this directive, clarification must be requested by the student to the professor prior to
submitting this assessment for evaluation.
NC&S Online Program NOV 2020
3
Background: You are the J3 (Operations Officer) for a Joint Task Force which is operating
directly under a combatant command. As the J3, you are facing the situations as described in the
ethics vignette below.
Readings:
1. “A Tool for Thinking About Ethical Challenges.” This reading is a tool developed and used
at the Navy Leadership and Ethics Center. (attached)
2. “Breaking the Rules.” This reading is one of many ethical vignettes from the parent reading
Ethics Vignettes for Military Officers, which was authored by professors at the Naval War
College and used College wide. (attached)
Your Task:
1. Identify the ethical issue(s) in question in the ethical vignette provided.
2. Using the 2RP tool, discuss your analysis of the ethical issue(s) when considered through
each of the 2RP perspectives. Remember, be sure to consider “results” (including
consequences), if you do choose to attack as well as if you chose not to attack.
3. Provide a recommendation to the JTF commander regarding what you believe to be the
most appropriate course of action, and why.
Note: These are real-world operational situations that have (and continue) to occur in places such
as Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.
NC&S Online Program NOV 2020
4
A Tool for Thinking About Ethical Challenges
By Prof. Kevin Kelley and Prof. Michael Pratt
As members of the profession of arms we hear much about the need for ethical behavior by leaders,
especially our military leaders. We are encouraged to study philosophers and ethicists. We closely
examine the definitions of terms such as morals, ethics, absolutism, and relativism. We attempt to
differentiate between simple ethical challenges and true ethical dilemmas. We recognize the
necessity of character and integrity as key elements in the establishment and maintenance of trust,
which serves as the very foundation of the bond between leader and those they lead. But how do
we attempt to ensure our decisions as leaders are “ethical?” How do we know what is right?
Captain Mark Smith, Chaplain’s Corp, USN, developed a simple framework for assessing options
when confronted with situations that include ethical elements. This tool is called 2RP and is used
by the Naval Leadership and Ethics Center and throughout the U.S. Naval War College. 2RP stands
for rules, results, people. 2RP suggests that each of these three “lenses” should be considered
when evaluating alternative courses of action. The 2RP framework that Chaplain Smith adopted
is derived from the three major ethical world views that scholars and philosophers have advocated:
• Rules-based thinking – identified with absolutist scholars and philosophers
• End-based thinking – identified with utilitarian scholars and philosophers
• Care-based thinking – a philosophy and world view that stems from some major religions
There is no universal agreement regarding which ethical world view is best. Thus, the 2RP
framework advocates considering the perspectives of each of these moral world views when faced
with ethical challenges or dilemmas. 2RP is not unique to the Navy and other ethical scholars have
advocated using similar frameworks when faced with ethical challenges.
2RP suggests we should always consider the rules, the results, and the people when making
decisions. It attempts to answer three simple questions:
a) Is it okay? (rules)
b) Will it be okay? (results)
c) Who says it will be okay? (people)
It suggests we should always follow the rules…unless there are compelling results, or people’s
rights, relationships, virtues, or character factors arguing that the rule is wrong, or deficient, or
non-existent for this particular issue.
The process to apply the 2RP framework is to ask several probing questions:
• What rules apply here (is it okay?): What is the right behavior based on laws, rules, norms,
principles or duties?
NC&S Online Program NOV 2020
5
• What are the possible results from the various courses of action (Will it be okay?): What
produces the best consequences for the stakeholders? What are the applicable
priorities/goals on all sides, and what would the choices do to these priorities/goals?
• What about the people involved (Who says it will be okay?):
o What is the most overall moral/virtuous action?
o What human rights are affected?
o What relationships need to be considered?
o Who are the moral exemplars (someone you respect)? What would they say?
• How do you balance all these considerations in the situation you face?
The use and application of the 2RP framework will not guarantee that one will reach the most
ethical decision, but it should assist the user with arriving at a more ethically informed decision.
NC&S Online Program NOV 2020
6
Ethics Vignettes for Military Officers
Breaking the Rules…
By Prof. Rick Norton
You are at war with an enemy who is intentionally violating the laws of armed conflict. Three of
his practices are of significant concern to your battle planners:
a. Enemy aircraft have been parked next to historically precious sites, including, structures from
antiquity (ziggurats, pyramids, statues, etc.), places of worship, and, in some cases in fragile
ecological areas (world heritage sites). Your lawyer asserts that in doing so, the enemy is
responsible for removing the safeguards provided by the accords and, as such, you can legally
attack these planes. Another officer points out that while you may have legal authority to do this,
all the world will see is video after video of your country’s explosives damaging or destroying
these precious places. A third officer points out that if you do not attack the enemy planes, they
will be able to be used against your and allied forces.
b. The enemy has placed anti-aircraft weapons near and on the roofs of hospitals. Once again,
the responsibility for violating the laws of war rests with your opponent. If your planes avoid
these hospitals, however, they will be forced to fly into especially designed killing zones,
substantially raising the risk to your pilots. But, the enemy has chosen hospitals which cater to
the needs of the most vulnerable of non-combatants, such as infants, children and mothers, the
old, infirm and so on.
c. Families with very young children have “voluntarily” moved into some of the enemy’s most
important and high value military buildings and sites. Cameras are on these families 24/7 and
provide a constant account of their activities to an interested world. This guarantees the deaths
of any of these people, whether resulting from combat or not, will be broadcast globally. The
world may recognize this is a calculated and cynical use of noncombatants by the enemy, but the
world will also know that whatever the legal justification, it will be your bombs and bullets that
will kill many if not all of these people.