Honorable Warfare: The Golden Rule in Armed Conflict

Richard Mathewson, JD, U.S. Army Veteran

The Golden Rule is more than an anachronistic concept relegated to the archives of history.  It is an active living principle that undergirds military doctrine.  Cloaked in the garment of honor, the Golden Rule is as applicable to modern armed conflict as it was to the chivalrous knights of the Middle Ages.  But for the average warfighter, honor may be more an intellectual ideal than a practiced virtue.  Because honor exists in the high tower of military doctrine and rarely enters the trenches of the battlefield, the average warfighter may not be as conscious of the Golden Rule in their military duties as humanitarian law expects.  Yet, it is the warfighter who will engage with the enemy in armed conflict.  Thus, the warfighter must become conscious of honor in their conduct.  This paper shows how actively integrating the Golden Rule into military training helps the average warfighter conduct themselves as an honorable professional in armed conflict.  Because the universal goal of armed conflict is to ensure peace, and the humanitarian standard is fairness toward and respect of others’ humanity, integrating the Golden Rule into military training will enhance the American armed forces and align them with international humanitarian law.                

The Golden Rule holds that we should treat others how we expect to be treated.¹  This rule spans space and time.  It is ancient and universal, crossing cultures and civilizations.  But it is as relevant today as it was in the past.  The principle that inheres this rule is humanitarian in its nature.  It is the recognition of the humanity in others and a respect for their human rights.  It is an acknowledgment that we are all on this planet together trying to stake out our claims and find our meaning whilst sharing space with each other.  The Golden Rule is thus a catalyst for unity.      

Unity is fundamental to the spirit of America.  The American ideal is predicated on working towards forming a more perfect Union:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.²

Unity is intimately tied to justice, domestic tranquility, common safety, general welfare, and liberty.  Yet, despite the paramount importance of unity it is liberty that has become the battle cry of the American experiment.  But this misses the forest for the trees.  Liberty is the result of unity because without unity of its citizens, no nation can ensure their freedom.  Moreover, unity begets justice because a unified society honors its members and respects their rights.  And unity ensures domestic tranquility because a unified society is less likely to fight each other.  Unity also facilitates common defense and promotes the general welfare (the words “common” and “general” infer unity).

In his letter from the Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King Junior wrote of the intimate and inextricable association between unity and justice: 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.³

But unity is not just an American ideal.  It is a universal humanitarian principle reflected in international standards.  The United Nations Charter speaks of unity in its Preamble:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED…

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples…⁴

Like the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter associates peace and security with unity.  Importantly, the U.N. Charter echoes the U.S. Constitution regarding the Golden Rule by calling for the recognition of the humanity in others with respect for their human rights:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…⁵

Thus, there is, at least in principle, a national and international desire for unity with an implicit recognition of the Golden Rule.  And both the U.S. Constitution and U.N. Charter directly associate this ideal with armed conflict (e.g., U.S. Constitution Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…[and] provide for the common defense…”; U.N. Charter Preamble: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”).  It can safely be said that the universal desire, as stated in these monumental documents, trends towards peace and unity despite the reality of conflict and division. 

The Golden Rule and War

So, how do we as a world achieve peace and unity whilst waging war against each other?  There are actors who do not necessarily desire peace and unity and who will enact all kinds of violence and destruction on those they do not agree with or cannot tolerate.  This does not change despite those who do not want violence and destruction.  This is a reality of the current human condition and although people may not agree with it, they must nevertheless accept it.  For this reason, the U.S. Constitution and U.N. Charter provide for the use of force in a defense context whilst simultaneously stating the desire for peace and unity. 

The Congress shall have power to…provide for the common defense…declare war…raise and support armies…provide and maintain a navy…(Article I, §8)⁶ 

The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy…(Article II, §2)⁷             

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...(Chapter 7, Article 51)⁸

This creates a paradox (i.e., engaging in conflict but striving for peace) which at first glance may seem contradictory but upon further examination makes sense.  The tension between the push for peace and unity whilst actively defending sovereignty and national interests in a globalized world may find relief in how war is waged.  For this, integrate the Golden Rule into military training for the average warfighter and actively enforce it on the battlefield.  In other words, if there must be war, if we must fight, we should do so honorably.  We must recognize that while war is the means, peace is the end:

It is not enough to say, “We must not wage war.”  It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.  We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but the positive affirmation of peace.⁹

It is a conscious, active focus on peace that brings about unity.  Not merely adding clauses to treaties and sections to military manuals that most warfighters never read.  Moreover, military doctrine must do more than passively inform operations; it must become the mantra of the warfighter in the trenches.  As long as the focus remains fixated on military operations to the exclusion of the underlying ethical principles that inform these operations, the outcome will reflect the motivation because the effect always follows the cause.  Consciously focusing on peace whilst simultaneously engaging in armed conflict does not inhibit operational success.  To the contrary, this ethical focus during operational execution enhances the operation and aligns it with the humanitarian principles that inform and control armed conflict. 

Honor in Military Doctrine      

Enforcing the Golden Rule on the battlefield may be easier than it seems.  There are already established mechanisms in military doctrine that make this feasible.  The U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual in “Section II, Principles” states the following about honor:

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

This aligns with the humanitarian nature of the Golden Rule that recognizes the humanity in others with a respect for their human rights.  Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines honor in the verb sense, “to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor.”¹¹  This is consistent with the Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treated) and the Department of Defense Law of War Manual relating to respect for opposing forces. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual further states:

Honor has also been called chivalry.  Chivalry is often associated with a specific historical context—a code of behavior for knights in Europe during the Middle Ages.  Rather than refer to this specific context, the term honor is used in this manual to indicate more clearly that the law of war principle of honor draws from warriors’ codes from a variety of cultures and time periods.¹²

Indeed, honor was historically associated with knighthood in English law.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines honor as, “[a] dignity or privilege, degree of nobility, knighthood, or other title that flows from the Crown.”¹³  Although it was an honor to be made a knight, being a knight in itself exemplified honor because they operated by a code of conduct that was honorable.  Thus, there are legal precedents for the Golden Rule in armed conflict that reach far back in history of warfare.

Fairness.  Reducing the principle of honor to operational practicalities, the Department of Defense Law of War Manual lists several examples of how it applies fairness to armed conflict:

2.6.2 Certain Amount of Fairness in Offense and Defense.  Honor requires a certain amount of fairness in offense and defense.  Honor forbids resort to means, expedients, or conduct that would constitute a breach of trust with the enemy…

…In requiring a certain amount of fairness in offense and defense, honor reflects the principle that parties to a conflict must accept that certain limits exist on their ability to conduct hostilities.  For example, parties to the conflict must accept that the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited…

…honor requires a party to a conflict to refrain from taking advantage of its opponent’s adherence to the law by falsely claiming the law’s protections…

…enemies must deal with one another in good faith in their non-hostile relations…¹⁴

Thus, U.S. military doctrine supports establishing trust with the enemy, limiting hostilities and injuries inflicted upon the enemy, avoiding unfair deception with the enemy, and encouraging good faith in non-hostile relations with the enemy (to list a few examples). 

Respect.  The Department of Defense Law of War Manual also discusses respect for the enemy during armed conflict, providing examples of treatment of POWs:

2.6.3 Certain Mutual Respect Between Opposing Military Forces.  Honor demands a certain mutual respect between opposing military forces.

Opposing military forces should respect one another outside of the fighting because they share a profession and they fight one another on behalf of their respective States and not out of personal hostility…

…honor is one of the foundations for the humane treatment of POWs…

…POWs must be treated with respect for their honor and person…

…POWs, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations [of] their own forces…

…Honor…animates the rules that determine who qualifies for privileges of combatant status (such status granting the combatant legal protection under the law of war)…¹⁵    

Thus, the common definition of honor from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (i.e., to regard or treat someone with admiration and respect) closely aligns with the chivalrous understanding of honor as fairness in offense and defense and mutual respect between opposing military forces.  But honor in the military context is distinguished from its civilian counterpart because the warfighter is a professional held to a higher standard.  Indeed, the Department of Defense Law of War Manual describes honor as reflecting the premise that “military forces are a common class of professionals who have undertaken to comport themselves honorably.”¹⁶  Thus, honor is already embedded within military doctrine, providing a reference point from which to integrate the Golden Rule into military training for the average warfighter.

Raising Honor to Its Rightful Place in Armed Conflict

The question may be asked: If honor already exists in military doctrine, what more can be done to ensure American armed forces are professionals who act honorably in armed conflict?  It seems in current times that honor is more a theory than actual practice or that honor is a thing of the higher command echelon that does not really reach to the lowest warfighter.  But the issue is not that honor is an archaic concept, divorced from the current state of warfare as a policy.  Nor is it true that such a concept is completely foreign to the warfighters who engage in armed conflict.  Fragments of honor surface in the military maxims that accompany training and motivational messages that inhere military doctrine.

Rather, the issue seems to be that honor has taken a back seat to the expedience of operational tactics.  Honor, while present in the waging of war, has nevertheless been demoted to the rearguard of battle.  The conduct of the warfighter is not necessarily informed by the dictates of honor because the average warfighter has not been made conscious of the relevance of this virtue in their conduct.  Because honor informs conduct, it should lead the charge into battle.  The essential role of honor in the development of the law of war demands a front row seat in the theater of armed conflict.  This is stated in the Department of Defense Law of War Manual:

U.S. military canons of personal conduct continue to emphasize the importance of honor as a core value.  Honor as a core value and other ethical norms continue to be vital as a medium for the implementation of the law of war.¹⁷ 

Honor is as relevant now as it was before when chivalrous knights of the Middle Ages practiced it as an art form.  But relevance is powerless without force with which to employ it.  Military training doctrine must not only pay passing tribute to honor in combat; it must place this virtue on a pedestal high enough to cover the entire field of armed conflict in every aspect of its operation.  If codes are created to determine the conduct of war, honor should be the pen that writes them, not merely just another topic in the periphery of military ethics.

If honor encompasses fairness in offense and defense and mutual respect between opposing forces, then honor should be foundational in military training in the U.S. Armed Forces.  What better way to reflect its commitment to humanitarian principles and compliance with international humanitarian law than to place a premium on honor.  For this, honor must be removed from the dust bin of “old fashioned” terms and reintegrated into current military doctrine and training.  To make the warfighters conscious of their duty of honorable conduct in combat, honor must become more than a few pages in a military manual or book of regulations.  In other words, honor must be made cool again.

Honor is an eternal virtue thus it never expires.  This is even more reason to bring it out of its cave of latency into the battlefield of armed conflict.  This is no difficult task.  Training is a staple of the warfighter’s daily diet.  Honor can be added as a supplement to an already nutritious meal of learning.  Because honor applies to treatment of opponents in armed conflict, it can be added to most training programs if that training involves warfighter interaction with the enemy.  Moreover, because honor is universal (being fair and respecting others is virtuous regardless of the individual), it has strong external validity and can be applied across situations and across cultures (although honor should consider specific cultural peculiarities to be effective).    

Importantly, the recruitment ethos of the military should reflect its commitment to honor.  Fairness in armed conflict may cause cognitive dissonance for the average warfighter whose training briefly, if at all, touched on honor but taught effective killing techniques.  Respect for the enemy may seem foreign to the contemporary soldier whose prejudice against the enemy influenced their reason to serve in the first place.  A big factor in recruitment is often an event in which America was attacked or assaulted by some enemy.  Thus, many recruits enter military service with a bias and prejudice that motivates them.  Although in certain situations, anger and contempt can be a valuable motivator, in general American forces should hold themselves up as honorable professionals.  The warfighter can be taught to be fair and respectful in alignment with humanitarian principles whilst also executing their military duties.  This starts with recruitment.

Make no mistake: Honor is not the opposite of conflict.  Conducting oneself as an honorable professional does not weaken the warfighter or soften military resolve.  On the contrary, this makes for a stronger, more respectable warrior.  Rather, honor is the credo of virtue by which a fair and respectable war is fought.  Honor does not acquit the enemy of accountability.  It ensures justice is more perfectly executed in accordance with universal humanitarian principles.  Without honor, we are left to the darkest nature of humanity.  With it, even in war we rise above our lowest point to a better world.  Honor does not diminish American military greatness, it enhances it.

Thus, integrating honor into training is no obstruction to armed conflict.  It is flexible to the contingencies of combat.  A rider on the red horse of war.  Where armed conflict is, honor should be watching as a silent but ready referee.  Honor is not impractical or restrictive in application.  It follows the contours of operational strategy, bringing otherwise unethical and unlawful conduct into conformity with fairness and respect—principles of international humanitarian law that the United States aligns with.

Honor is indispensable to the ethical and lawful conduct of war.  One can be fair and respect one’s enemy whilst still using force to achieve a military objective.  Military expediency is not inhibited; it is enhanced.  Honor is the antidote to the poison of unjust and unlawful warfare.  Importantly, honor is a prophylactic to the scourge of war because it prevents the beauty of humanity from being absorbed by the beast of unrestrained death and destruction.

Ultimately, honor requires the warfighter to see the human beneath the uniform.  The Golden Rule demands recognition of the opponent as a human being, not just an “enemy.”  If I do not want to be treated unfairly or disrespected, then I will not do this to another.  The warfighter must once again become chivalrous and see “that [the] opponent is entitled to all honour and respect, [and] that [their] enemy, though [they are their] enemy, is at the same time a brother in the same noble family of knights-at-arms.”¹⁸  This does not impinge upon operational effectiveness; it improves it by raising it to a higher standard.   

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the sword still leaves a trail of death and destruction.  Consequently, honor must once again take center stage in the play of armed conflict.  The closer humanity is to great destruction, the greater the need to see the humanity in others.  This is more necessary for the warfighters who walk the fine line between life and death.  Thus, the maxim of the warfighter should be: “If there must be war, if we must fight, we should do so honorably.”

Integrating honor as a core tenet in training the warfighters can improve military discipline, but emphasizing honor at a leadership level is a priority.  The military functions as a top-down organization.  What the leaders promote trickles down to their subordinates.  What leaders exemplify, warfighters model.  As the logic goes, an honorable leadership begets an honorable military.  The inverse is also true.  Although it is not this simple (there is always a vast chasm between theory and practice), an honorable leadership is more likely to produce a more ethical fighting force.  Honor starts at the top. 

Conclusion

In sum, actively integrating the Golden Rule into military training will help the warfighter become conscious of their duty to conduct themselves honorably in armed conflict.  Honor must become a virtue the average warfighter internalizes, not an idealistic doctrine in the halls of leadership.  The average warfighter may not be a chivalrous knight, but they can be a professional who exemplifies the highest standards of the United States armed forces.  In the frenzied madness of active combat, the whispers of honor remind the warfighter that they are a professional warrior.     

Notes

________________________

¹ The Holy Bible, King James Version (King James Bible Online, 2026), https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-7/#12.

² Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2016), 620.

³ National Park Service, Letter from Birmingham Alabama Jail April 16, 1963 (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/.

⁵ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/.

⁶ Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2016), 622.

⁷ Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2016), 624.

⁸ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7.

⁹ National Park Service, Anti-War Conference, Los Angeles, California, Feburary 25, 1967 (2026), https://www.nps.gov/mlkm/learn/quotations.htm.   

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

¹¹ Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honor.

¹² Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 67.

¹³ Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 2014, 10th ed.), 853.

¹⁴ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 67-68.

¹⁵ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 69.

¹⁶ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 69.

¹⁷ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 66.

¹⁸ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (Endnote 127, June 2015, Updated July 2023), 69.

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.