Tactics, command, leadership

ethics, which describe how various people and societies believe
that one should conduct oneself under different circumstances;
and meta ethics, which pursue logic semantics, i.e. linguistic con-
cept analysis of such ethics terms as ‘good’, ‘right’ and ‘duty’.
When it comes to morals, one can say that they are based on three
foundation stones: norms are what is right or wrong, appraisals
of good and evil and the outlook on mankind (Koskinen, 1993).
Koskinen describes three fundamental criteria for correct conduct
with each corresponding to a particular theory: duty ethics, con-
sequence ethics and intension ethics.
Duty ethics simply indicate for us that certain actions are wrong
and should therefore be avoided, while others are right or even
constitute duties, i.e. that one must perform them. Four levels of
duty can be differentiated, from the most abstract to the most con-
crete: principle, fundamental norm, conduct norm and rule. Many
duty ethics rules and norms have probably originated from expe-
riences in times gone by as to which conduct is suitable or unsuita-
ble. Justification for an action is often unnecessary as to whether it
leads to good or bad consequences – it is right or wrong ‘in itself’.
The Ten Commandments is an example that seldom needs to be
justified, even for non­believers (e.g., ‘Thou shalt not kill.’)
Consequence ethics (or results ethics) view actions in the light
of (conceivable) consequences of actions. A formal and general cri-
terion for a correct action can be worded, for example, as follows:
A certain action is right if and only if it produces better conse-
quences than any other available action.
According to Koskinen (1993), consequences can be judged by
their intensity, duration, probability (or improbability), proximity
in time, fruitfulness (the chance that negative experiences are
followed by positive), purity (the risk for a positive value on the
short term not being followed by a negative on the long term)
and diversity (the number of people affected by positive/negative
consequences).
Both duty ethics and consequence ethics are related to what
one does (or fails to do). Intention ethics, in contrast, stipulate
that an action’s moral value does not just depend on the degree
to which one fulfils rules and norms, or on which consequences
result from the action. Intention ethics indicate the importance
of disposition and the intention behind an action. A criterion for
a good action can be that a certain action is good if and only if the
intention behind the action was good and has originated from a
good disposition.