The United States Army Fraternization Policy

My task is to write a thought paper on an ethical dilemma facing the United States Army. The Department of Defense Fraternization Policy that officers and enlisted Soldiers are forbidden to have any type of relationship is ethically wrong. This type of relationship may be considered as fraternization. Why should the Department of Defense, particularly the United States Army forbid one group of people from having a personal relationship with another? The Army and its leaders always stress ethics and morals, yet this policy is in total contrast to the ethical decision making process as we know it. If you were in a relationship that is now forbidden, then you had a time limit to get married or terminate the relationship. Why give these Soldiers a chance to marry by a certain date, and thereafter, this relationship is prohibited? This decision alone is an ethical decision blunder. Although the assignment requires no additional research, I found it necessary to do a little homework on the words morals, values and ethics in order to clarify some of the terminology. Like most Americans, if asked, I couldn't define the difference between morals and ethics; the two were always one of the same. These definitions were taken from the internet. The author unknown, I found an article on ethics that defined these terms clearly for me; Morals: the rules and prima facia duties that govern our behavior as persons to persons (gentleness, compassion, fidelity, fairness) Values: States of affairs that are desired by and for people and that we want to increase (health, wealth, freedom, happiness, human rights) Ethics: The whole field of morals, duties, values, and virtues -- our attempts to order human conduct toward the right and the good. Although definitions may vary, for the thoughts that follow, I will explain how the Army's uses of these words are in total contrast with the policy on fraternization and conduct. I will give my thoughts in no particular order.