Ethics in International Relations
The American situation with Russia over intelligence collection poses a serious question on whether countries should focus on the common good and international virtues or act to protect their diplomatic relationships. Countries show respect for each other by maintaining one another’s dignity. However, where foreign jurisdictions commit serious crimes, every country that has intelligence against that adverse should mandatorily help out humanity.[1] In such circumstances, people need to be concerned more about preserving humanity than keeping up with their ego for the moment. International relations cannot supersede critical human relations and connections in the world.
Kantian deontological duty-based ethics theory is concerned with what people do in the present and not the consequences of the actions. The focus is on one doing the right thing, for the right reasons and avoiding conflicts because they are wrong. Kantian proponents and followers believe that actions are unjust if they are wrong even when they produce functional consequences. They are sometimes referred to as the non-consequentialist beings.
In the American-Russia situation, the best option for any country would be to prevent the attack from going on. What would be the essence of collecting intelligence by the U.S. when they still let such actions to take place. The aim of gathering intelligence and spying is to protect humanity and help a country make informed, sober and right decisions. In this case, the soberest and correct choice would be to inform the security council of Russia’s plan. The best platform would be to call an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to address the situation. Such actions would aim to protect the rest of the world and maintain the human race.
What Russia is planning is wrong from all angle. They are planning an attack on another soil to destroy other people and their values. Such actions should not be entertained even by their best friends. When one talks of the right moves, the perception would be that it has to conform with the conscience standard as to what could be right or wrong. In the current case, attacking the Assad regime would lead to innocent deaths. Loss of lives from an ethical perspective cannot be justified even when it is meant for the right purpose.
Duty-based ethics concerns itself with making the right decisions and not looking at the possible consequences of the actions. In the presented case, the best response would be to inform the security council of the evil plans. Though the direct retaliation by Russia would be spoilt diplomatic relations with the United States of America, the country would be aware that they saved other people’s lives. The state has to do what is right and not to appease Russia at this stage. The concern would mostly be into ensuring that the country grows with the right mindset based on the truth and the desire to protect the world. As America, their duty stretches further as the superpower nation, thus cannot sit back and watch everything unfold blindly. They have to protect the people’s dignity at all costs and ensure the world is a secure place for the human race through avoiding wars.
On the other hand, virtue ethics back up the decision to reveal the information to the security council. Virtue ethics is concerned with protecting a preserve of moral ethics in society. Some of the ordinary virtues include; compassion, honesty, integrity, empathy, among others.
From the United States perspective, honesty involves revealing requisite information to the public. In the current cases, the right forum to avoid any chaos would be the security council. The council is the set-up forum for maintaining global peace and to maintain honesty and loyalty to the course. The country would need to maintain the highest level of commitment to the course by revealing such information. In fairness, one does not bother how knowledge was acquired so long as they tell the truth. It is a case where the United States revealing the truth would save other people from distress and massacre from Russia hence the country would be under a duty to disclose such information to the council with the hope that it would react.
Empathy is another virtue that the country should be looking up to in this case. An empathetic state needs to look at the tribulations of other people and consider them in decision making. From an American perspective, the country should look at how the chemical weapons would affect the Syrian people and opt for the best decision. In the scenario where it is clear that there would be a massacre in Syria, there is not so much to think of other than the number of deaths that would be recorded in the country courtesy of the severe effects of Russia’s attack. The United States should not out to massage Russia’s ego instead protect the world from such serious effects that Russia would create in Syria.
Virtue ethics proponents believe that one should do unto others what would be done to them. As a result, the United States, which expects good deeds from other countries, need to consider others when they are in such a privileged condition. The U.S. has often received intelligence from other countries in times of danger, and thus the best decision for them would be to stretch the same favour to others this time when they are the ones with the intelligence. They can do this at best by releasing information on how much Russia is involved in planning an attack on Syrian soil.
Question 2
The situation in Peru poses a question of whether the CIA should continue equipping the Peruvian National Police and the military keeping in mind that they sometimes violate human rights. The dilemma that comes to mind is whether human rights in such cases should supersede the interest of the country, maintaining peace and dealing with terrorism as one of the significant issues affecting them. The best option would, however, be for the CIA to continue funding the police and military with focus and caution to them to prosecute cases rather than executing individuals.
The decision by the CIA can be backed up by ethical egoism. The theory dictates that their self-interests should control the ethical control and position of an individual. Personal moral standards should guide one. They have to look over their head and see what their interests include. For such people, the focus is on whether their actions preserve their interests and objectives.
The CIA’s interest in Peru is to ensure that the cases of terrorism are minimal. They plan to calm down the enemy, which is the terror group; hence the focus should be on how much they can achieve their target rather than maintaining high moral standards during the operations. They are aware of how much the Peruvian courts are corrupt, and thus people may not face justice through the corridors of justice. As a result, to finish the enemy, their hands are tied on nothing more than continuing to fund the National Police.[2] It is only through the police and the military that the objective can be met. While human rights are fundamental for the country to protect, the United States is first interested in promoting peace which the National Police and military see would only fit where they execute some individuals.
The best that the United States can do to protect their interests and human rights are to set up restrictions to the police. However, even in the limits, they need to keep in mind that cases of executing members of the terror groups would not go to zero as the officers can come under pressure in some cases and see no other option other than executing the individuals. However, the country’s focus would be to preserve their interest which is to maintain peace in Peru through eradicating terrorism.
Another ethical approach would be the standard right approach. Under the said approach, one is interested in whether the option satisfies the majority. At the moment, the people of Peru are under severe threat from the terror group and need intervention into the issue urgently.[3] To protect their needs and integrity as a country, the United States needs to do what would satisfy the Peruvian people first. Though human rights are critical to the society, it is essential to set up a primary first before going all out to protect human rights while putting the right to life of civilians at risk by maintaining the groups.
The assertion that some of the judges in Peru are corrupt raises eyebrows on how the United States can best secure Peru other than through continued funding of the course to fight the terrorism within the Peruvian borders. The current focus is to maintain peace and return everything to normalcy.[4] That is the common good for the Peruvian people. While there could be immense interest in protecting human rights but it is a dilemma where the country has to pick human rights over the lives of civilians hence prompting the best decision to be to protect the Peruvian’s interests.
The same decision can be backed up through the duty-ethics approach. The approach entails an individual making the right decision without worrying about the consequences. Continued executions of members of the terror group is a consequence of the acts of the police.[5] The primary duty at this point it to go all out and secure Peru and stop any possibility of war coming up. America must protect their neighbours and in doing so, the duty-ethics demands that they should focus on the good deeds that would make better options for the country and not the consequences of their actions. Human rights violation is a consequence and not the wrong act. As a country, right now, people need to choose the right decision and not go for something accessible in the name of protecting human rights. That would not mean that the country has neglected human rights preservation but rather just preferred maintaining peace in Peru and later address human rights preservation.
Bibliography
“Distinguishing virtue ethics from the ethics of duty.” Understanding Virtue Ethics, 2014, 7-48. doi:10.4324/9781315712130-2.
Herring, J. “15. Applying ethical theories.” Legal Ethics, 2017. doi:10.1093/he/9780198788928.003.0015.
Herring, Jonathan. “1. Ethical theories.” Legal Ethics, 2017. doi:10.1093/he/9780198788928.003.0001.
Koggel, Christine M., and Joan Orme, eds. Care ethics: New theories and applications. Routledge, 2019.
[1] Koggel, Christine M., and Joan Orme, eds. Care ethics: New theories and applications. Routledge, 2019.
[2] Herring, Jonathan. “1. Ethical theories.” Legal Ethics, 2017. doi:10.1093/he/9780198788928.003.0001.
[3] “Distinguishing virtue ethics from the ethics of duty.” Understanding Virtue Ethics, 2014, 7-48. doi:10.4324/9781315712130-2.
[4] Herring, J. “15. Applying ethical theories.” Legal Ethics, 2017. doi:10.1093/he/9780198788928.003.0015.
[5] See note above