My territory of investigation is the military and its members, including regular soldiers, regiment officers and commanding officers. The concept is morality and freedom of will within the military society. The ethical and moral basis that the military lives by is all very well in order to justify the actions taken by the military but can a soldier just ignore his own morals and values and live in a system where morals are dictated? The soldier loses his freedom of morality in a strict society where unquestioning obedience is a requirement and all decisions are made for the individual. The army operates on a system of discipline, loyalty and mutual trust. These combined make the military an efficient and organised system but are the requirements for soldier’s realistic? A main source I have been using is the Military Covenant, which shows the moral component of the army and the inner qualities needed to be a soldier, such as selfless commitment, courage, discipline, integrity and loyalty. These qualities are brought out by and taught by the leaders but how much responsibility do they have? Are they just the pawns of the people above them in the hierarchy? These questions all lead back to the notion of freedom of morals. I have used Hegelian philosophy through out this study to help answer the above questions. The Philosophy of Right is used in order to highlight the importance of freedom as only belonging to a social being who partakes in ethical life, only in this sense is the individual truly a person. Therefore taking away this freedom, like in the military, the person loses what makes them human. According to Hegel the will is essentially free. This distinguishes us from animals, having purposes and striving deliberately to achieve them. The society that we live in plays a large part in forming our wants and desires and Hegel never loses sight of this. His theory of abstract freedom shows how we do as we please in a state of freedom that is pushed to and fro by the social and historical forces of our times. This is an important point in relation to the freedom of will in the military as it supports the idea that soldiers do choose to limit free will but in doing so open themselves up to a different society where individual choice is limited but it is maybe just an extreme version of the society that we all live in where our choices are shaped by our society. A key change that highlights freedom of choice and morality is the difference between an autocratic society, such as Germany under the rule of Hitler in the 1930’s and 1940’s, and the democratic society of Britain today. There is a huge difference in the military styles; Hitler ruled his military with a dictatorship that called for ‘blind obedience’ whereas any democratic society portrays freedom of choice and initiative. My objective is to discover if these two military systems are really that different in how a soldier is expected to obey orders based on military morals and believe in them fully. Is it possible for a human being to give up their values and morals in order to commit themselves fully to a strict military society? Are our morals really that flexible?