Ethics and Moral Reasoning - Essay Example

Essay: Ethics and moral reasoning submitted Ethics and military use of drones Target killing can be defined as the premeditated execution of an individual by a state institution or organisation outside a battlefield or judicial procedure. At present the government of the United States is practicing target killings semi-publically as with the execution of Al-Awlaki and Osama Bin-Laden. Though they were initially opposed by Bush administration, targeted killings have a taken central role in the US government in the war against terror. Instances of target killings by the US have commanded a significant attention such as the killing of American citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi and Osama Bin Laden in 2011.Under Obama’s administration, the use of targeted killings has increased especially through the use of combat drones operating mostly in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. This has come with its own fair share of public outcry, condemnation and even praise. Is the use of drones by the US military for targeted killings of individuals and members of militant groups justified? This is the question this paper seeks to answer. This paragraph seeks to evaluate if the use of predator drones by the US military offers them any satisfaction. The theory of utilitarianism offers a very straight forward way of evaluating behaviour. When given a choice between two acts, utilitarianism states that the act that should be chosen is the one that creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this particular case, the most important question to ask ourselves is what type of satisfaction does the US military gets after engaging drones to eliminate their perceived enemy. Ideally there are several benefits that the US military gets such as there are few civilian casualties, the risk of losing their soldiers is low and there is assurance in the fact that only the targeted individual is killed. All these benefits can be said to bring lots of satisfaction to the US military. For every action, there is a likelihood of certain consequences occurring. In this paragraph, the question of consequences for the use of drones arises. Because utilitarianism considers an act’s consequences in assessing its morality, utilitarianism is also regarded as consequentialist theory. Thus if the consequences of one act produce the greatest net good-or the highest utility-for the greatest number of people, this is the act that should be carried out. In this case the use of drones in eliminating terrorists and other militant individuals seems as a good idea to many people, and of course it brings net good, since with their elimination, the world will feel more safe and secure. The third principle of utilitarianism is the pleasure derived from doing something. This principle is as controversial as it is problematic. The use of drones in target killing could bring so much pleasure to the soldiers carrying out the execution but it brings sorrow to the family members of the killed individual. In this case, the pleasure enjoyed by US military could be seen as hedonistic, but at the same time can be thought of as being noble since, the death of a single terrorist brings joy to millions other. The second ethics theory is known as deontology, often ignores an act’s consequences while considering whether its good, bad or morally neutral act. Deontologists do not deny that acts have got consequences; they claim that those consequences should not play a role in evaluating the act’s morality. Thus the consequences of the use of drones by the US clearly will not mind so much about the results of their use but will focus on the duties and obligations the US military has in carrying out the surveillance and killing rather than on the consequences of this action. In his Critique of Practical Reason, Kant (1997) claimed that certain types of rules established what he called a categorical imperative. This is a requirement or rather demand (imperative) and has no exceptions. In the case of US military use of drone, is it a must that they target certain countries with drone attacks? In this theory, one should only act according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time want that it should become a universal law. It is prudent therefore to ask ourselves if the same drone attacks were directed towards the US, how they would feel about it. The second bit of this theory claims that you should act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. Thus all people deserve respect and would be wrong to treat people as objects, or as a way of achieving some goal, or in another way that does not show respect. The use of drones of course does not purpot to promote respect amongst the recipients of the attacks. It is a means of protecting purely the US interests of ensuring peace and security in their country. Its common sense that the US would not entertain any country using such technology on them. The basic rule is doing unto others what you would like them do unto you. The other very important ethical theory is that of virtue ethics which is an approach that focuses on moral and ethical questions that focuses on a person’s character. A person of virtuous character according to Aristotle is someone who has admirable characteristics and displays them in a way that is balanced and harmonious. This person seeks to have an ideal character, and the virtues that contribute to this goal will all be appropriately related to each other. The US use of drones could be seen by some people as being virtuous since it is helping protect their lives from terrorists and other militant individuals. However to the affected countries, it seems immoral of the US to carry out such an attack killing and terrorising their people. Stories have been told of a village in Pakistan where the villagers live in constant fear of an explosion from the sky due to constant surveillance by drones. Surely the US would not like such a thing happening in their land. Temperance is another virtue tackled by Aristotle. A temperate person is moderate and has self-control. The person is able to control his or her emotions through reason and does not indulge in extreme. When it comes to US drone attacks, fact is that the US military has increased their use and their appetite is just growing. It is imperative then that they do a self-analysis and determine the most urgent needs that should be tackled by drones and not just every other task. Only the most delicate and sensitive ones should be left to drones. Another virtue tackled under virtue ethics is that of magnanimity, which basically is how we regard ourselves and how we are regarded by others (Aristotle 2002).This also involves the respect others give to us and also the kinds of rewards and honours we can receive. In the sensitive issue of fighting terrorism the US has taken its stand as the global watchdog and thus sees itself as the protector of the world from terror. The US use of drones has come under sharp criticism as well as praise from countries affected by terrorism. The US looks at this as an excellent innovation that would save armies all over the world a lot of casualties, finances and possible death of their troops and thus deserves some praise and awards. Compared to the theory of utilitarianism it’s obvious that deontology seems to be too sterile and fails to capture some of the complex issues that arise when we confront ethical issues in real life. Another weakness of deontology is that it requires one to act in a way that seems obviously wrong and unethical and as we saw with utilitarianism any ethical theory that leads to potentially unethical results is problematic. The other weakness with deontology is that it emphatically states that you should never treat others only as a means to achieving your goals and that you should only do something if everyone in that same situation would act the same way. This is obviously a bad one for the US foreign policy and interests abroad, especially on the issues of war on terror by the use of drones. Looking at the three ethical theories presented above, the theory of utilitarianism provides the most satisfactory answer to my question. This is because of all the three theories presented this is the only theory that seems to fit in and adapt with the US foreign policy. Thus the US is of the opinion that by targeting terrorists using drones, it is doing so for the good of the whole world. The US believes that this chosen act of drone attack is the one that will create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The US military will also derive utility from their use of drones and will quite be satisfied from the knowledge that their enemies have been put to death, have less casualties and no much spending on logistics and taking their soldiers to the battlefield. This theory therefore argues that the correct moral choice is that which generates the greatest good and reduces unhappiness. The other strength utilitarianism in regard to the thesis question is that it considers the consequences resulting from the choices one confronts. The consequences of killing a terrorist produce the greatest net good or the highest utility, for the greatest number of people, even though, this could make a few sad. The main weakness with this theory is that it is not wise to choose an option that pleases many people when distributing goods and services as compared to any other available choice. Utilitarianism also has an intuitive appeal; it seems to be relatively obvious to evaluate our actions based on the results those actions produce. References James, L. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc2kOMJQJoQ http://www.justwartheory.com/ Read More