Controversies in Military Ethics & Security Policy
The person underneath the uniform: Moral ambivalence and moral distress in the military
Introduction
The Dutch armed forces have once again come into the public spotlight. This follows years of budget cuts and a steadily shrinking military organization that had assumed an increasingly marginal role after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many believed the world had become a safer place, and in the absence of substantial threats, the armed forces moved to the periphery of society.[1] Today, however, war has returned to the European continent, military personnel appear on primetime talk shows, and military training has become a topic of televised entertainment. Military experience is now framed as a source of personal development and mental resilience, especially in times of crisis. Collaboration between science and the armed forces has intensified in research and education. Even Crown Princess Amalia has enrolled in military training—the first female member of the Dutch royal family to do so. Times are changing.
This raises numerous questions—not only about rising defense budgets and military readiness, but also about the moral dimensions of soldiering and the consequences of military action. Are we witnessing the militarization of society, or are we simply strengthening civil resilience and self‑reliance? Do we, as a society, truly understand what an armed conflict entails? What alternatives exist for achieving peace and security? Here the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536) offers a timely warning: “Dulce Bellum Inexpertis” − “War is sweet to those who have no experience of it.” His words prompt us to listen to those who have: Dutch military veterans who served their country in various wars − near and far, just and unjust, won or lost. Their stories help us understand what soldiering means and guard us against being misled by the notion that war is anything but bitter.
We all know that military work is physically and mentally demanding, but its moral pressures are often overlooked. Soldiers regularly face conflict, danger, injustice, and violations of human dignity. Such experiences may leave deep emotional marks − powerlessness, anger, and moral distress. To illuminate these dynamics, I draw on my doctoral research, “Moral Experiences in the Armed Forces: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Moral Distress in Veterans.” The central research questions are: What kinds of events during deployment do veterans find morally stressful? Can these experiences be understood as role conflicts? What are their cognitive and emotional components? My research maps the kinds of situations veterans regard as morally taxing and highlights the moral dimensions of deployment.
Role theory proved useful in understanding how soldiers work with different value systems in their personal or professional roles. Soldiers often feel torn between being protectors and perpetrators, wanting to protect and support, but sometimes causing harm in the end. This dual role is emotionally complex and difficult to process.
Besides identifying the moral incidents, part of this article will also deal with the question of what to do with the findings.
The following topics will be covered and illustrated with examples from my study:
Moral distress as an integral part of military professionalism
Method and results
Failed self-constitution due to moral distress
Room for maneuver as a role strategy to prevent moral distress
Recognition as a role strategy to cope with moral distress and moral responsibility
Concluding thoughts
Moral distress as an integral part of military professionalism
The moral tension soldiers can experience has two main sources. They operate
within a field of violence (on the edges of civilization),
within a hierarchical structure (which pressures personal moral integrity).
This means that moral ambivalence and the resulting moral distress can be seen as an integral part of military service. Soldiers should be prepared for this during training, supported before deployment, and cared for after missions.[2] Veteran’s mental care and especially the military chaplaincy[3] should pay close attention to the moral burden that affects veterans’ mental and physical health and well-being. Fortunately, the concept of moral injury has gained increasing attention and is widely recognized among veterans.[4]
Jonathan Shay is considered one of the first scholars to have used the concept of moral injury. He gives the following definition:
“Moral injury is a betrayal of what’s right by a person in a position of authority in a high-stakes situation.”[5]
The feeling of betrayal arises from the fact that soldiers act within a command structure and therefore cannot determine their actions themselves. Shay underlines the institutional cause of moral injury. Litz et al. offer a broader definition that reflects how veterans commonly experience it:
“The lasting psychological, biological, spiritual, behavioral and social impact of perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations of the self.”[6]
Symptoms of moral injury sometimes resemble those of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). They can be difficult to distinguish because moral injury often occurs in combination with PTSD.[7] In short, PTSD is based on fear caused by life-threatening situations whereas moral injury arises from violations of deep-seated moral and ethical beliefs and expectations.
However, doubts, questions, and disappointment do not only occur in high-stakes situations; they may also be triggered by seemingly “small” issues. We overlook this point if we only focus on moral injury (which can nevertheless arise from prolonged moral distress) in a narrow, clinical sense. Moral distress is the more suitable term for these kinds of experiences. It was coined by Andrew Jameton in 1984:
“Moral distress arises when one knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it nearly impossible to pursue the right course of action.”[8]
The painful feelings reported by veterans show that their conscience is functioning well
Moral injury and moral distress are related but differ in severity.[9] In my research, however, I prefer to use the concept of moral distress for two reasons. First, it is broader, which makes it recognizable for all military personnel in their professional role. Moral distress includes smaller conflicts of values that might seem minor at first glance but still affect someone deeply. This allows for a broader and more nuanced understanding of veterans’ experiences. Second, in my opinion, moral distress is not an injury that can be treated or cured. Instead, I agree with other scholars who argue that moral injury and moral distress should not be confined to the clinical domain because it is a healthy response that signals a person’s awareness of their moral obligations[10] and is therefore evidence of a good character[11]. The painful feelings reported by veterans show that their conscience is functioning well. In addition, moral experiences are not necessarily connected with mental problems or a moral burden. Moral distress can be seen as a sign of mental health, not illness.
Method and results
The aim of my research was to understand what kind of events veterans find morally stressful. I used the Self-Confrontation Method (SCM), a narrative approach that allows for the identification and analysis of both cognitive and emotional aspects of personal experiences.[12] Incorporating the affective level reveals that it is sometimes difficult for an outsider to understand how a veteran feels about a (moral) incident.
The sample included 25 veterans, both active and former service members, diverse in military and personal backgrounds. They were divided into three groups: those with no mental health issues, those with mild issues, and those with serious problems.
Large differences emerged in the number of negative affections the veterans expressed. Many participants mentioned ambivalent feelings, and the majority described morally stressful experiences. The most common emotions were powerlessness, anger, and disappointment. There are two main sources of moral distress: violence and relations.
Experience with violence can occur at three levels. Sometimes they had to use force themselves, sometimes they saw others in danger, and sometimes they witnessed harm to civilians. Veterans struggled with their own actions, others’ actions, and decisions made by the military institution.
Relationships with fellow soldiers can be a source of strength, but also pain. Veterans recounted experiences of bullying, sexism, and abuse of power. These experiences were especially painful because they came from comrades. At the same time, strong bonds and mutual support were deeply valued. When a comrade is injured or killed, survivors may start wondering if they could have done more.[13] This so-called “survivor’s guilt” can be intense and long-lasting.
Moral experience and perceived problem severity differ largely between individuals. The following examples are incidents that veterans perceived to be their emotionally most negative experience during deployment.
Bosnia/Croatia deployment, 19 years old, the only woman: “I got a report for wearing a colored hair tie. I wasn’t allowed to be a woman.”
“On my video screen (UAV), I watch her being dumped in a ditch – only wearing a blouse, covered in blood – where she dies before my very eyes. I feel so powerless. This is the worst thing I have ever experienced.”
“When I had to make weather forecasts, I often saw aerial photographs of the target beforehand. I’d sometimes see children playing or a dog lying there. Then you knew it might be bombed in a few hours.”
“I’m sitting in front of the door to Role 2 [field hospital]. Mulder is there with some other colleagues. I want to go in, but I can’t.”
Failed self-constitution as a result of moral distress
Role theory is helpful to understand moral tension in the military context. Soldiers in their professional role have restricted autonomy and cannot necessarily follow their own moral compass but must obey orders within the chain of command. This institutionally restricted autonomy requires compliance from military personnel[14] and can lead to role tension at the personal level.
Soldiers can experience conflicts between roles and the corresponding expectations and values which may lead to a dissonance between one’s identity and acts. Role tension is defined by Biddle as follows:
“The current appearance of two or more incompatible expectations for the behavior of a person”.[15]
Role tension can exist between the personal and the professional role (role discontinuity) or within the professional role (role overload), e.g. when soldiers have different professional roles like warrior, diplomat, and community worker[16] (Broesder, 2008) with often incompatible value systems.
Moral distress resulting from role tension can affect personal identity. This claim can be substantiated by Christine Korsgaard’s self-constitution theory which links identity formation to ethics. This theory states that the source of normativity lies in the human project of self-constitution.[17] In our actions we express what we consider important. Consequently, acting is the way to build identity. This assumes that we can choose which actions we take or refrain from taking. That does not apply to the military role which restricts individual freedom to direct one’s actions. In operational military practice this means that soldiers may have to perform actions that conflict with their values or refrain from acting in line with their values. But these actions, performed in the professional role and on order, become part of identity as well. This may result in a failed self-constitution, a dissonance between “who one is” and “what one did”.
The following quotes demonstrate how performing the military role may affect identity.
“I can’t look at myself in the mirror. I never look into my own eyes. When I do look, I see someone who has failed.”
“The military has knocked the feeling out of me. Because of: culture, hierarchy, seniority, following orders, listening and no room for initiative.”
“Half of me has never come back but is still out there burning trash and unloading planes.”
Not all veterans experienced deep role conflict. Some felt they were “different people” at work and at home. Interestingly, most veterans, especially those with mental health issues, valued their soldier identity more positively than their civilian identity.
Veterans also described their most positive deployment experiences, linked to feelings such as happiness, comradeship, and self‑confidence. Analysis revealed two role strategies that help mitigate moral distress. The first is room for maneuver. Veterans who were able, at least to some degree, to decide what to do and how to act recount more positive experiences. The second is establishing relationships of social recognition. Both strategies are elaborated in the next sections.
Room for maneuver as a role-strategy to prevent moral distress
Compliance is an essential factor in the armed forces, an organization based on coercion. Soldiers may respond with acceptance or (silent) resistance.[18] But expressing feelings of discomfort or objections can be very important because acknowledging role conflict honors the person behind the soldier. Feelings of ambivalence about mission goals are part of the job and should not be neglected.
In the following example, the veteran clearly voiced his objections. This was associated with self-confidence and positive feelings at the affective level:
“In the management team I expressed my dissatisfaction about the security of factory ships that were emptying Somalia’s Exclusive Economic Zone.”
On the other hand, situations of coercive compliance resulted in negative feelings or even feelings of betrayal. Veterans who carried out an order they already doubted retain very negative emotions. Although soldiers operate within a chain of command, they do not seem to make any distinction between functional and personal responsibility in critical situations; rather, they feel personally involved.[19] When an action feels wrong from the beginning, it is difficult to process. Although it confirms one’s own judgement, it leads to a negative self-evaluation.
The following statement may serve to illustrate this point:
“I’m wondering if I should have shot after all. The fact that I didn’t act bothers me. I wonder what happened to that woman.”
At times, veterans felt abandoned by their superiors or had to manage complex situations without any rules or official channels. But interestingly, the absence of organizational guidelines or strict oversight on missions can have a positive effect, giving soldiers room for maneuver to resolve problems. It is precisely during deployment that soldiers often experience the freedom to make their own choices and become aware of their military identity that emerges in making those choices.[20] Although compliance is an important pillar of the military organization, veterans often reflect very positively on situations where they could take initiative. That also applies to cases of disobedience or burdensome situations with complex moral dilemmas, as the following quote shows:
“I was ordered to eliminate a 14-year-old boy with a walkie-talkie. One of our cars is stuck in the wadi. But… I didn’t do it.”
Allowing a certain room for maneuver may relieve role tension experienced and lead to less conflictive experiences of agency. In these moments, the conflict between the military and the personal roles is reduced to a minimum. These are experiences veterans judge to be their most positive and where they take on the role of helper. In these cases, soldiers could express their moral commitment and reflect their values in action. I want to underline this principle with a quote from my study.
“During my mission we did a foot patrol. When we passed a small group of children they waved at us and smiled. I felt this is why I do this job.”
Recognition as a role strategy to cope with moral distress and moral responsibility
The second role strategy concerns societal recognition. We build our identity not only by expressing our values in action; there is also a social dimension. This means that a veteran’s self-image is not only shaped by actions and experiences during deployment, but also by the way others value them. According to Honneth identity does not only have an individual side, but also needs confirmation from others. The struggle for recognition, based on mutual dependence, is the main motivation for human action. “One’s relationship to oneself, then, is not a matter of a solitary ego appraising itself, but an intersubjective process, in which one’s attitude towards oneself emerges in one’s encounter with others’ attitudes toward oneself.”[21] These relationships need to be developed. This involves social struggles. When relationships fail, one may feel misunderstood or ignored, a negative experience that motivates people to build mutual social connections and work towards a more just society. These are ethical relationships based on love, justice and solidarity. Experiences of being ignored motivate us to connect. People are therefore mutually dependent on each other for identity construction.
A veteran’s self-image is not only shaped by actions and experiences during deployment, but also by the way others value them
Veterans long for recognition because they often work far from home, under difficult conditions, even risking their lives. Morally committed to their employment, they act on behalf of the country they serve. But at the same time, the work of military personnel is invisible for civilians, for reasons of security or because they are deployed abroad. It is important to note that recognition does not necessarily mean appreciation, but simply acknowledgement of their efforts. A truthful and honest account of military work must include achievements, attempts, ideals—but also failures, mistakes, and traumatic events.
Sherman adds another aspect when she argues that saying “thank you for your service” is not enough.[22] Society as a “moral community” shares veterans’ moral responsibility and cannot simply delegate it to them. Supporting veterans and helping them find their place in society, especially when they struggle with psychological or moral burdens of missions, is also a civilian task. But I think we should not stop here. We cannot ignore that their suffering points to another reality, the faceless and nameless victims of war whose human dignity has been taken away.
Findings from my research show the importance of (mis)recognition at various levels. The first is self-recognition: some veterans did not consider themselves being a “real” veteran for different reasons, among them fear of being stigmatized (for example “veterans have PTSD”). This is paradoxical because veterans often complain about societal misrecognition but also contribute to negative framing.[23] The second level is about recognition from close relatives and friends. At the third level, they expect recognition from society or the institution. I quote examples of misrecognition from each of these levels:
self-recognition:
“Old veterans fought for the Netherlands. That was useful. They can look back on it with satisfaction.”
Inner circle:
“I had an argument with my friend because he thought that dying was ‘part of the military profession’. I do not agree with him. Maybe it counts for the risk but not for the outcome.”
Society/institution
“I am part of a society that does not care about what happened in Lebanon.”
“I applied for a combat badge for the crew, but it was rejected by the committee because it did not meet the definition.”
Others recounted very positive and meaningful experiences of recognition, associated with strong feelings of self-esteem and connectedness.
“I walked along in the parade, the audience clapped and cheered and that meant a lot to me. I thought: ‘Yes, I did all these deployments and I can be proud of that.’”
Concluding thoughts
The moral suffering that soldiers experience during and after deployment should be shared widely in society in order to awaken a strong collective commitment to peace and security and “become each other’s neighbor”[24]. This means that adequate care and support are essential, but the underlying moral questions cannot be answered solely by individual clinical treatment. Our veteran’s moral distress requires more than that, i.e. a moral response. Questions concerning military deployment, national and global security in the Netherlands and the world, justice and human dignity concern us all. I advocate for addressing these moral questions in society to see how we might contribute to a more just and peaceful world.
[1] Moskos, C. C., Williams, J. A., & Segal, D. R. (2000): The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War. Oxford/New York.
[2] Wildering, G. and Iersel, F. v. (2014): Morele vorming in de krijgsmacht: een katholiek perspectief. Budel.
[3] Schuhmann, C. et al. (2023): How military chaplains strengthen the moral resilience of soldiers and veterans: Results from a case studies project in the Netherlands. In: Pastoral Psychology 72(5), pp. 605−624. doi.org/10.1007/s11089-023-01097-5.
[5] Shay, J. (1994). Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. New York.
[6] Litz, B. T. et al.: (2009). Moral Injury and Moral Repair in War Veterans: A Preliminary Model and Intervention Strategy. In: Clinical Psychology Review 29 (8), pp. 695−706, p. 697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003.
[7] Barnes, H. A., Hurley, R. A. and Taber, K. H. (2019): Moral Injury and PTSD: Often Co-Occurring Yet Mechanistically Different. In: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 31 (2), A4-103. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19020036; Gray, M. J.et al. (2012): Adaptive disclosure: An open trial of a novel exposure-based intervention for service members with combat-related psychological stress injuries. In: Behavior Therapy 43 (2), pp. 407415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.09.001.
[9] Litz, B. T. and Kerig, P. K. (2019): Introduction to the special issue on moral injury: Conceptual challenges, methodological issues, and clinical applications. In: Journal of Traumatic Stress32(3), pp. 341−349. doi.org/10.1002/jts.22405.
[10] Brodie, B. and Lifton, R. J. (1975): Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans, Neither Victims nor Executioners. In: Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5 (4), p. 772. https://doi.org/10.2307/202878; Farnsworth, J. K. et al. (2017): A functional approach to understanding and treating military-related moral injury. In: Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 6 (4), pp. 391−397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.07.003.
[12] Hermans, H. J. M. and Hermans-Jansen, E. (1995): Self-Narratives: The Construction of Meaning in Psychotherapy. New York/London.
[13] Kubany, E. S. (1994): A cognitive model of guilt typology in combat-related PTSD. In: Journal of Traumatic Stress7(1), pp. 3−19.
[14] Etzioni, A. (1975): A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. Revised and enlarged ed. New York.
Sanneke Brouwers, born in 1979, has a master’s degree in theology from Radboud University in Nijmwegen, Netherlands. She has been a military chaplain in the Dutch armed forces since 2008 and was deployed several times with the Dutch Ballistic Missile Defence Task Force. From 2019 to 2025, she worked at the Netherlands Veterans Institute. In December 2025, she earned a PhD from the Tilburg School of Catholic Theology.
