Gun Decking Case Study

Gun-Decking

I spoke with my SEL, Senior Chief Reynolds, about the gun-decking case and the consequences that gun-decking can have in the fleet. As we discussed this case, Senior Chief stressed the importance of planning, loyalty, and trust. He told me that passing a command inspection is a big deal and requires an immense amount of planning and preparation. He said it was obvious that these sailors were not keeping the ship in fight mode and were not performing as war fighters in the ready. While passing this inspection can be very crucial in influencing the reputations of everyone from the division officer to the skipper, he emphasized there is never an appropriate time and place for gun-decking. He also explained the importance of having

Senior Chief then stated that while on the surface it seems like the chief is being loyal, he/she is really not. The chief in the scenario is completely undermining loyalty to the ship and the mission which both come before shipmates in the constitutional paradigm. Finally, I would not allow the chief to mark off the jobs because that would sacrifice the safety of the ship and the crew. In the Navy we have an ultimate commitment to the mission and by not properly doing our job, we are not “war fighters in the ready’ and we are not keeping the ship in “fight mode” (ASCS Reynolds).

Aristotle defined a virtue as a good habit formed by rationally shaping one’s desires in order to reach a mean between overreaction and under reaction (Prof. Skerker). Virtues are only acquired through the habituation of doing the right things voluntarily. Aristotle also believed that a person doing the right thing and reaching the mean of a virtue should be brought pleasure by their actions. In a class discussion we defined character as the sum of all of our virtues, combined with how we use those virtues to influence our decisions and actions. The virtues I found most applicable in this case study are: integrity, humility, and loyalty. Integrity is a very influential virtue in this case, as

When assessing why gun-decking happens, I immediately thought of utilitarianism. A utilitarian believes that the right thing to do is always the choice that yields the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utility focuses on only the outcomes of an action and not any intentions. I believe that gun-decking can happen in the fleet because it is easy to look at the outcomes of intentionally cutting corners and justify why you would do that. For example, in the case above the chief is trying to create the most pleasure for the most people by signing off the uncompleted maintenance jobs. In this, he/she would be preventing his chain of command from suffering the consequences of not passing the inspection by simply signing off the maintenance jobs. When evaluating gun-decking using Act Utilitarianism, which is assessing an individual act as a single act, it can make great sense to try to save the most people you can from pain and grief by cutting a few corners (Prof. Skerker). Conversely, applying Rule Utilitarianism which is assessing a single act as a general rule to gun-decking, the idea of utility becomes flawed. For instance, if every Division Officer in the Navy allowed maintenance jobs to be falsely done and recorded, then our ships would not be in fight mode or ready to defend the United