The Ethicist: Above and Beyond the Call?

During the Vietnam War, I and another artillery officer were involved in one of the largest battles of the war. This young officer selflessly sacrificed his life to protect a wounded soldier. For his heroism, he was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (the second-highest honor in the Army). It was an award I believe he richly deserved. I recently saw a copy of the citation describing his actions. In it he was also portrayed as heroically adjusting artillery fire on the enemy for many hours until he finally gave up his life for another. The reality is that the young officer’s death occurred at the very beginning of the battle. I was calling in artillery fire that night. I don’t know why my actions and his were conflated. The heroic core of the story is still true. I don’t want any honor for myself. Still, I’ve agonized over whether I should contact the Army and set the record straight. What is the ethical thing to do here? NAME WITHHELD

The historical record of significant events is important, and you have firsthand knowledge that the current military record for the Vietnam War (or at least a significant detail regarding one key battle) is inaccurate. You should report this erroneous detail to the military, exactly as you have explained it here — you should stress that the cited officer still deserved his honor and that you seek no recognition for yourself. It is not disrespectful to correct an official error, assuming you follow the appropriate procedure. Moreover, I highly doubt the Army would retract a Distinguished Service Cross from someone who has been dead for decades, particularly because your description of the events still fulfills the criteria for the award itself. And even if it somehow did, the lack of the award would not change what this man actually accomplished.

The column deals with whether or not someone should hide information about an event that occurred several decades ago. Exposing the details of this event involves changing the image (sort of) of a person that received recognition. From the authors tone, one that is factual or narrative more than emotional, it seems that he doesn't feel a sense of betrayal or injustice. From what I gather, emotion isn't a driving force for the man wanting to expose this new information. It seems that reason is a more prominent reason for why someone would want to reveal such information. To this man, and to the Ethicists, the reasoning is that something shouldn't be historically written down if it didn't happen. Reason plays a big role into why the Ethicists suggest that the man should come forward. 

Furthermore, I feel as both these men prefer map knowledge vs. story knowledge. They think that the map knowledge can't be or won't be accurate without the individual knowledge being accurate. This connects with reason but also with the army’s ethics. In the army, the search for the truth is valued over anything else (I think). The people in command need to know about casualties, they need to know about the actions of their soldiers. Therefore, this organization values the truth and fact above all and it is, perhaps, the reason why he feels he should report it. The individual truth of a soldier is only valuable when it is correct. This is also connected to the man's morals. Throughout the column, the man states that his reason for wanting to report this incident is not for personal reasons but he feels that it's his duty. And although he is having mixed feels about it, I think that that his internal conflict is not with what he should do vs. what the army would want him to do but rather what he wants to do vs. what society will think of him. The army, man and Ethicist all have the same paradigm: that story knowledge is only valuable if there is truth behind it. 

Lastly, I would need to know the family's reaction to all of this. As mentioned, this is a big honor and the family of the soldier who received this award would be very honored. I would need to know how the family feels about the soldier being recognized. Personally, I think this would make a difference. Think about it: if the medal gave the family some sort of comfort or acceptance for the loss of their family member, is it ethical to take that away? The column was written formally, in the sense that it didn't carry a lot of emotion, and I would want to know about the emotional context of the people involved before anything is taken from them. 

Therefore, I agree that with the Ethicist but to an extent. I think that the incident should be reported but only if the soldier’s family is OK with it. I realize that technically they have no claim to the medal and honor, but I think their take should be considered. After all, it would be their lives that would have changed the most, not the man, Ethicist or the army’s.