America’s Sacred Calling to Lead by Example:

Preserving the Dignity of Humanity in Armed Conflict

Richard Mathewson, JD, U.S. Army Veteran

Although dignity and equal rights for humanity is a universal concept, America has a unique opportunity to lead by example in human rights in armed conflict.  The United States has one of the most powerful fighting forces in the world.  Thus, it is important that the conduct of the military forces represents the ethos of the nation.  This nation’s foundation was constructed from humanitarian principles—its Constitution was designed to promote and preserve human rights.  In a world with such diversity of governments, America has maintained consistency for centuries in evolving toward a more perfect Union.  And despite the dark parts of America’s development, its light of hope for a better humanity has shone brighter.  Importantly, the American experiment is not over—there is still great potential for it to be successful.  America has influenced the world unlike any other nation.  Apart from all the other ways in which America has influenced the world, it has had an outsized impact militarily.  This pervasive military presence creates an opportunity for America to set the bar high for human rights in war.  By training its warfighters to honor and respect humanity during armed conflict, America exemplifies the humanitarian principles that make it great and it truly becomes a bright light on a hill for others to see.  A greater focus on preserving the dignity of humanity in war upholds the American ideal and aligns U.S. fighting forces with international humanitarian law and human rights.  This paper shows that America as a global leader can be a great benefit to the world in how it wages its wars.  Great leaders are great because they lead by example—the United States military can be more than mighty; it can be noble by teaching its fighting forces to honor and respect all humanity in their military service.

When The Drums of War Start Beating, Don’t Forget Humanity

What is the point of war?  Destruction and domination, or peace and security.  The concept of “defense” typically permeates political conversations about armed conflict.  To be sure, defense is a critical component in the waging of war.  Indeed, Article 51 from the Charter of the United Nations provides for the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”¹  It is universally recognized that defense plays an essential role in armed conflict.  And to the degree that self-defense—for preservation of human life and prevention of destruction—is achieved through armed conflict, war may be justified.  It is the case that there are actors of such degraded morality that war may be the only means by which to restrain them and prevent the destruction and death that would come from their unfettered violence.  But war itself is a brutal enterprise that produces great destruction and suffering that reaches far beyond the sanitized confines of clearly demarcated battle lines.  At its core, war reaches into the very soul of humanity, and there it leaves an ugly and painful scar that never fully heals.  Consequently, more attention should be paid to honoring and respecting humanity during war because it is war that poses the greatest threat to humanity.      

The waging of war is controlled by rules and laws that the parties agree on—international humanitarian law.  But these laws of war, while inclusive of humanitarian principles and human rights, are simply the container that holds the substance.  It is one thing to provide instructions for what to do in a situation; it is quite another thing whether those instructions are effective in influencing the conduct in that situation.  In the case of armed conflict, laws may justify conduct legally, but when that conduct is the taking of human life or destruction of other life, laws do not prevent or mitigate the trauma and permanent scars that remain after the dust from the battlefield clears.  And when the white flag is raised and treaties have been signed, the bleeding and the dying are left only with memories and pain.  It is at this moment that humanity must confront the shadow of war and ask: Did the end justify the means?  The better question to ask is whether there is any humanity left at all.  Because the answer to this question reveals whether the parties who waged war honored and respected humanity as the laws of war demand.  International humanitarian law may control armed conflict but if the spirit of these laws is not present during the enforcement of the letter, then the law itself means very little. 

Because of the foundational humanitarian spirit of the American ideal, the United States military is uniquely positioned to show the world a better way of resolving its conflicts.  America can improve humanity by honoring and respecting it during its darkest hour.  America is special; it was destined for greatness.  For this, it must become great.  This responsibility requires honor and respect for humanity because it is humanity that will benefit from its example or pay the price if it falls short.  To clarify, this is not a condemnation of America or its military.  History has shown the American military to be a professional fighting force.  Rather, this is a recognition of the potential for America to be a leader not only in power, but in honor with how it treats humanity during the chaos and destruction of war.  No matter how good we do, we can always do better.    

Fundamental Right of Dignity   

The United States of America is founded on natural rights.  These are rights that are universal in nature and come from a source that transcends positive rights (“rights” bestowed by a government through a law-making process).  In other words, the nation of America derived from natural rights that preceded the institution of its artificial government.  The Declaration of Independence recognized these natural rights, referring to them as “unalienable” (i.e., “impossible to take away or give up”² meaning, rights not subject to the grant or denial of human convention):        

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.³

The idea of equality and inalienable rights of all humanity is ubiquitous, echoing in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter which states: “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”⁴  The Preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasized the universal nature of the equality and inalienable rights of humanity: 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge…⁵

Thus, there is universal recognition of rights that exist outside the reach of government control.  International law assigns equality and human rights with a universal and fundamental status.   

Natural rights have historical precedent.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman philosopher and statesman, spoke of natural rights as a “universal law of justice” that is “unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil...[ a] law [that] cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation.⁶

Black’s Law Dictionary defines natural right as:

A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property.⁷ 

The definition of natural law as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary closely parallels the description of natural rights by Cicero:

A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong.⁸

Natural law, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, involves “legal and moral principles” that come from a “universalized conception of human nature” which is to say, human rights derive directly from natural law, not human-made law.  Thus, the rights so fundamental to the American ideal that place a premium on the humanity of its citizens are based on universal human rights that cannot be infringed by any government.  These unalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Yet, there is a right so fundamental to being human, so universal, so divine that any deprivation of it would offend the very essence of justice.  This right, although not explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, is easily inferred from its fundamental nature without which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are empty platitudes void of meaning.  That is the right of dignity.   

Dignity in U.S. Military Doctrine    

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines dignity as “the quality or state of being worthy of honor or respect.”⁹  Because humanity carries divinity within it, it is worthy of honor and respect based on its nature per se.  This applies in peace and war.  This is so regardless of whether the person is classified as a friend or foe, civilian or enemy.  Because the enemy is human, they too are entitled to the dignity of fair treatment and respect for their humanity. 

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual includes a recognition of dignity in its doctrine:

Honor demands a certain amount of fairness in offense and defense and a certain mutual respect between opposing military forces.¹⁰     

Dignity infers being worthy of honor or respect.  The Department of Defense Law of War Manual includes honor and respect in its general principles of law relating to armed conflict as a foundation from which other principles come:

Three interdependent principles—military necessity, humanity, and honor—provide the foundation for other law of war principles, such as proportionality and distinction, and most of the treaty and customary rules of the law of war.¹¹

The interdependence of “humanity” and “honor” is not by accident (the manual associates honor with humanitarian principles), and the foundational nature of honor from which other law of war principles derive is an explicit acknowledgment by military doctrine of its importance in the conduct of U.S. forces during armed conflict.  It is a small step to connect dignity with honor.  Dignity is synonymous with honor as the fair and respectful treatment of the enemy (law of war manual’s definition of honor) is per se recognition that the enemy is worthy of honor and respect (dictionary definition of dignity).  Thus, U.S. military doctrine includes dignity in its jus in bello (law applying to conduct during war) principles.  In this, American armed forces align with the American ideal of dignity that all humanity deserves honor and respect, even during periods of armed conflict.  Although this principle is essential to the American ideal, it is a universally held value.  Indeed, the Preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights placed a premium on the dignity of humanity:   

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…¹²

Geneva Conventions I-IV: Prohibition Against “Outrages Upon Personal Dignity”

The concept of dignity can be found in international humanitarian law that applies to armed conflict.  In the “General Provisions” of Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, the High Contracting Parties agree that all parties are prohibited from engaging in “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”¹³  The prohibition against outrages upon personal dignity is also found in Geneva Convention II for Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,¹⁴ Geneva Convention III for the Treatment of Prisoners of War,¹⁵ and Geneva Convention IV for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.¹⁶

The four conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”  These prohibitions apply to both civilians and members of armed forces; to those taking part in hostilities and those taking no part in hostilities; to the warfighters on the battlefield and the wounded and sick off the battlefield.  Without specifically defining “outrages upon personal dignity,” Geneva Convention I provided filler related to humane treatment “without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria.”¹⁷  Thus, to the degree that dignity means “the quality or state of being worthy of honor or respect,”¹⁸ international humanitarian law that prohibits inhumane treatment that humiliates, dishonors, or disrespects wounded and sick forces, prisoners of war, and civilian persons in theaters of war preserves dignity.  

Leading in Honor by Honoring Humanity in War

America has a legal responsibility to honor and respect humanity during armed conflict.  Because the United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, it is held to the humanitarian standards set out in these treaties.  But this is positive law, and adherence to its provisions is merely mechanical conformity.  America is a nation built on a natural law understanding of human rights.  Thus, on a fundamental level, the American ideal is constructed on honor and respect for humanity.  In other words, honoring and respecting humanity in armed conflict is something America must do because this is what America is.

It is one thing to say that “all [humanity is] created equal, that [it is] endowed by [its] Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”¹⁹  It is an entirely different thing to live out this principle when the scourge of war rears its ugly head and bares its sharp teeth in bloodlust.  American warfighters must not only be trained on what or how they are permitted to do in combat.  This merely guides them on how to kill the enemy legally.  The armed forces of America must also learn to internalize honor and respect for their fellow humanity—both friend and foe.

If the American ideal is to have any meaning at all, American conduct must embody the humanitarian principles that imbue this ideal.  Just as the American ideal finds expression in the justice enforced at home, so too it finds meaning in how the American warfighter treats all humanity in the hellish throes of armed conflict.  Justice is justice regardless of the context.  Right is right despite the setting.  The situation has no bearing on the conduct within it because conduct is a product of choice, and choice comes from free will that cannot be infringed by outside forces.   

The infrastructure is already in place for this.  The Declaration of Independence was more than just a divorce decree—it was a proclamation to do things differently, to do things humanely.  The Bill of Rights is more than just a token assurance of liberty—it is an official recognition of natural rights that are inalienable.  The Constitution is more than just a law that ensures freedom—it is the very embodiment of freedom.  But none of this means anything if America forgets its humanitarian roots.  None of this changes anything if America abandons its role as a leader in human rights.  And nothing shows dedication to humanitarian principles like honoring and respecting humanity in times of war.

America has an opportunity to lead the world in “reaffirm[ing]…faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women.”²⁰  The United States has been bestowed with a great responsibility of being a world leader.  This is no small thing.  But such a great responsibility carries with it the expectation of greatness.  To be great, one must embody greatness.  U.S. armed forces are the spearhead of a great era—one that reaffirms commitment to the humanitarian principles that make this nation one of the greatest experiments in human history.  America can honor itself by honoring humanity in war.   

For this, the U.S. military must adopt these virtues as core to its mission.  Honor and respect must be more than words in a book or filler in a briefing.  These virtues must become part of the internal fabric that the cloak of military professionalism is made from.  This requires a more integrative approach to training.  To teach the warrior the credos of their craft, the virtues that imbue it must be thoroughly ingrained in their mind.  This is an active process that requires constant reinforcement.  Practically speaking, this is easier than it may seem. 

Regular instruction is already part and parcel of the military lifestyle.  Ingraining these virtues by integrating them into pre-existing training programs will produce large returns with minimal investment of both time and resources.  Honor and respect are not foreign concepts to the armed forces.  Tribute is paid to these virtues already in military doctrine and, albeit sparsely, training.  So, there is already a semblance of emphasis on honor and respect for humanity in armed conflict.  However, focus on these virtues in the constitution of the warfighter has taken a backseat to the expedience of combat readiness.   

This paper is not suggesting training doctrine should focus on virtues more than fighting.  Both are critical to mission success.  Rather, current military doctrine and training programs should give the humanitarian principles that underlie military missions in armed conflict greater attention.  If the foundation of the structure is weak, the structure itself will collapse in a storm.  In other words, there is no need to divert resources and efforts away from mission readiness because teaching the armed forces to honor and respect humanity during war does not take away from this.  It adds to it.  It enhances the warfighters by equipping them with the moral fortitude to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of humanity.  Like the chivalrous knights of the Middle Ages that practiced honor and respect as an artform, American fighting forces should internalize these virtues and practice them daily in their duties.         

Notes

________________________

¹ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7.

² Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable.

³ National Archives, Declaration of Independence: A Transcription (2026), https://www.nps.gov/mlkm/learn/quotations.htm.   

⁴ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1.

⁵ United Nations, 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 (2026), http://un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm.

⁶ The Treatises of M.T. Cicero on the Nature of the Gods (Thomas Francklin, trans., 1853), 360.

⁷ Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 2014, 10th ed.), 1519.

⁸ Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 2014, 10th ed.), 1189.

⁹ Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dignity.

¹⁰ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 66.

¹¹ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 50.

¹² United Nations, 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 (2026), http://un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm.

¹³ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

(2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-1.htm.

¹⁴ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention II: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-2.htm.

¹⁵ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention III: relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-3.htm.

¹⁶ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-4.htm.

¹⁷ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Geneva Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

(2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-1.htm.

¹⁸ Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dignity.

¹⁹ National Archives, Declaration of Independence: A Transcription (2026), https://www.nps.gov/mlkm/learn/quotations.htm.   

²⁰ United Nations, 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 (2026), http://un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm.

Biography

RICHARD MATHEWSON has a diverse collection of experiences and education with an integrated understanding of power, law, human behavior, belief frameworks, and institutional mechanics.  He entered the U.S. Army young, trained as a military police officer, learning order, force, and discipline inside a structured authority.  After military service, his work as a private investigator and psychological profiler involved refining surveillance, behavioral analysis, and evidentiary precision.  He pursued formal study in religion, grounding in moral architecture and belief systems.  He completed a master's degree in psychology, deepening his understanding of trauma, radicalization, and human behavior under stress.  He earned a Juris Doctor, equipping himself with the language of law, institutional limits, and lawful force.  Now he leads The Kincade Society, operating at the intersection of governance, advocacy, and public responsibility.  He can be contacted at thekincadesociety@protonmail.com or (860) 374-8759 for further information on this topic and how The Kincade Society can offer practical solutions related to these real-world problems.