GOVERNMENT & ETHICS
Most citizens would
agree that their government should act in an ethical fashion; that is, the
government ought to do what is morally right. Yet this may not be as clear cut
as it seems. One major problem is that in a nation of millions of people, it is
unlikely that they all share the same code of ethics. Even in nations such as Iran or Afghanistan, where the government
has adopted the moral code of a religion there are people who do not share those
beliefs. Most governments, then, that
attempt to act in an ethical fashion do so according to the utilitarian theory. The actions they
take are those they feel will produce the greatest amount of good.
In what specific
areas can the question of ethics be applied to government? We shall examine
three types of government interaction with others:
As discussed earlier, many feel there are fundamental human rights that the government has the duty to protect. However, from society to society and age to age there has not been universal agreement on what these rights are. Hobbes, for example, argued that citizens should give up some of their rights in exchange for protection of the most basic, the right to life. Islamic republics do not grant the same rights, especially to women, that are granted by western republics. Even the United States, with its reputation for protecting rights, has difficulties in this area. Abortion is one example. The right to freedom of expression is another. Capital punishment and conscription are others.
B) Laws
Most nations control their citizens and protect their rights through a code of laws. This brings up the moral question of whether citizens should obey the laws of their government. In most societies, there are certain things that would not be done on moral grounds alone, whether there were laws against it or not. The law prohibits us from murder, but most of us, believing in the right to life, would not commit murder anyway. Why have laws then? Mainly for two purposes:
1) to create a legal means to punish the immoral;
2) to deter others who might be tempted to commit the act.
Not all laws are based on moral principles. A person who over parks breaks a law, but few people would consider it morally wrong to park too long in one spot. Some laws are created for practical, rather than moral, reasons.
Then there are laws that some people disagree with on moral grounds. One who is morally opposed to war might disagree with the government’s right to draft people. What options are available to this person? He/she might agitate to get the law changed, but that change may not be forthcoming. In this case, the person is faced with either compromising their moral belief as or accepting the consequences of disobeying the law. In extreme cases, such as with Gandhi in India, when enough people disagree with the laws of a nation, actions might be taken wherein the entire government is deposed in favor of a new one. We shall look at revolution in more detail later.
C) Duty to One’s Country
Just as many people believe they have prima facie duties to their family, they believe they also have duties to their nation. Can patriotism be justified on moral grounds? If one says, “I have duties to America because it is America” (that is, my country) cannot someone else be equally justified in saying, “I have duties to Iraq because it is Iraq”? After World War II, trials were held in Nuremberg, men were held responsible for their immorality. Yet, if we hold that it is morally correct to serve one’s country because it is one’s country (a fluke of geography) how could we hold these nazis morally responsible?
However, if one said “I have duties to America because I believe in the moral values of America”, the situation would be different. One would now be acting from a moral base. Of course, one could still argue that the nazi war criminals believed in the moral principles espoused by Hitler, but this would return us to the argument of Relativism.
Another problem that arises is what is to be done if one does not agree with the moral principles of their nation. A person could move to another country, unless, as in Iraq, this is prohibited. They could refuse to serve their country, or they could actively work to change it. The latter two options often carry severe consequences, however.
II.
The State and Other States
The state also deals with other states, and often these dealings can be governed by moral principles. States deal with each other in both peaceful and violent fashion.
A) War
A state of war, whether declared or not, exists when there is armed conflict among two or more nations. It is generally accepted that wars of aggression are immoral. But what of defensive wars? Some argue that all war is immoral, while others believe the State has the moral obligation to defend itself, or even its allies, from aggression by others.
The issue of war is a complex one. So complex, in fact, that the next unit of this course is devoted to the study of it.
B) Trade and Diplomatic Relations
Some will argue that the only morally just position for a State to take is one of isolationism. That by embroiling itself in treaties and agreements with other states, the State runs the risk of compromising its own morals. For example, the United States has historically supported some nations that violate the human rights of their citizens, an action we view as immoral. Critics argue that our support of these states compromises our own standards and is acting in an immoral fashion by not taking actions against those allies. The typical defense of such policies is definitely utilitarian, by supporting nations that engage in activities we find immoral we are preventing those nations from falling to an even more immoral system. We are taking the course that leads to the greatest good (or the least evil, anyway.)
The U.S., more than most nations, is rather self-sufficient; it would not be impossible for it to close its doors to the rest of the world. But is it morally correct for the U.S. to turn its back on others. Does the United States have a moral obligation to help people in other nations, even if such actions could lead to war? Do we have a moral obligation to help the starving people of the world; even if by doing so we strengthen immoral governments? Difficult questions indeed.
III.
The State and Anti-state Activities
A) Terrorism
In this day and age, terrorism has become one of the most difficult problems with which governments must deal. This is mainly because of moral principles. A State not governed by accepted moral principles would have no qualms about launching massive airstrikes against suspected terrorist bases. But most states see themselves adhering to certain moral principles which create for them a dilemma in dealing with terrorism.
The United States places a high moral value on the right to life. Thus, in hostage situations, the U.S. is severely restricted in its options. Usually, our government has taken the course of negotiation, or ransom paying, with terrorists in order to protect the lives of its citizens taken hostage. Many argue that such action unfortunately encourages more terrorism. By giving in to such demands, the U.S. is seen as an easy target.
Israel, on the other hand, sees itself as being in a perpetual state of war. It is their policy never to give in to terrorist demands, even when this endangers the lives of the hostages. Furthermore, Israel has no qualms about retaliation for terrorist acts, even when such retaliation results in the loss of lives by people who were not involved in the terrorist act. The “state of war” justifies such actions. One could argue from the utilitarian view that such actions save more lives than they cost.
B) Revolution
Is armed revolt against the government morally justified? No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson claimed that it was the duty of citizens to overthrow a government that did not serve the people. Revolutionaries, if they think in ethical terms at all, are likely to be utilitarians. Revolutions almost always result in deaths and social upheavals. Rights are often violated and many innocents suffer greatly. Still, if the overall good outweighs the evil, utilitarians find revolution a justifiable action.
On the other hand, men such as Jesus and Gandhi deplored violent revolution on moral grounds. Jesus refused to be drawn into any movement for the overthrow of Roman rule, and Gandhi agreed to lead the Indian Independence movement only if they followed his non-violent tactics.
Can a State act in a moral and ethical fashion and still function successfully in this modern and complex world? This is the ultimate question to consider.