Right vs. Right

Our class schedule at OCS (Officer Candidate School) incorporated an inordinate amount of time studying ethics. We defined ethical dilemmas, classified the different flavors of ethical dilemmas, analyzed ethical dilemmas with a variety of specific methods, and eventually, learned the processes for resolving ethical dilemmas. We then spent countless class hours debating actual ethical dilemmas from "Ethics for the Junior Officer".

While certainly a welcome break from (and infinitely more engaging than) the multitude of other topics of our tutelage during training, I found this obsession with ethics befuddling. Mainly, I worried that the sample scenarios we debated seemed so cut-and-dried to me, even the ones which were clearly dilemmas: "right vs. right" and not a deftly disguised "right vs. wrong". Sure, there were gray areas, patches of shoal water, endless reflections of "ifs" - but my decisions were swift, my supporting arguments clear-cut and without regret.

At first, I chalked it up to a perhaps overly developed sense of right and wrong, until I discovered that classmates with unbending views on any topic found it nigh impossible to choose between competing virtues. Experience, loyalty, integrity, wisdom, and compassion did much to weed out non-dilemmas, but only muddied the waters for the true tough choices.

Now, more jaded after five years in, I venture to guess that my classmates' indecision (prophetically foreshadowing, for me, astonishing moments I later encountered of senior officers' indecision or complete refusal to decide) stemmed not from intellectual or moral uncertainty, but from a fear of being judged wrong in the final analysis, the "command review", or most strikingly, on the OER. In the heat of battle, often any decision is better than no decision, particularly in a dilemma. I like to think I'm immune to brown-nosing and wardroom politics, but most of the toughest dilemmas I've faced thus far have been decisions between what is best, or right, and what the command directs. I've learned diplomacy.

These past few weeks, I've faced a different sort of dilemma entirely, completely unexpected on my part. Early rotation to (and thus guaranteed placement in) my most-desired job, or a crazy, high-intensity deployment. Sounds like a no-brainer, and I could tell most of the people I asked for advice saw it as a short-term vs. long-term dilemma, with the long-term career benefits easily weighing out the short-term adventure. (I daresay they also saw it as individual vs. community - pleasing the detailer and the Hawaii ship's command, or indulging in a personal, irreplaceable adventure.)

But it wasn't that simple. While my decision was swift, I didn't trust myself at first, and it was only as the intervening days played out that my reasoning became clear-cut. After the medical argument - that my doctor needed to see me once more in six months' time to complete my care - it turned out that my next strongest point was actually a rebuttal to concerns of the Hawaii ship's XO - that I didn't have enough "white hull" experience. As I explained to the XO in my carefully worded "Dear John" letter yesterday, this deployment provides me the opportunity to gain much of the white hull experience I lack, and makes me a much stronger candidate to walk into a 270'/378' OPS job this summer.

I followed my heart on this one, and it was only after much consideration that my head came around to see the wisdom of the snap judgment. It turns out, in hindsight, that there really was no second choice for me, though I'm still astonished at the detailer's willingness to accomodate my desires, even at the expense of his.

I won't let them down.