Ethics of the British Armaments Industry - Essay Example

Ethics of the British Armaments Industry Introduction Business enterprises are a significant part of society. As Lawrence, Weber, and Post (2005,pp.4-5) suggests, in today's environment, economic activities are no longer detached from their surroundings, but rather interconnected within an interactive social system that affects, inasmuch as it is affected by society. However, given that business enterprises are primarily profit-maximising organisms, the idea of a socially responsible enterprise seems far-fetched, especially in disparate industries where businesses often produce unintended consequences that are commonly considered as unethical, placing them in a difficult situation (Mahoney 1990, p.546). One industry facing this ethical dilemma is armaments. On one hand, the development, production and sale of armaments are an extremely profitable business, serving national strategic, economic, and defensive purposes (Havemann 1998, pp.241-242). On the other hand, it carries unintended consequences - promoting war and violence - whose effects cannot be easily avoided short of halting business activity altogether (Havemann 1998, pp.242-243; Gowri 2004, p.33). Thus, while it is sufficient for most enterprises to act ethically by ensuring that their actions comply with the minimum standards of avoiding harmful practices and exercising good conduct, such criteria seems inadequate in evaluating the ethical responsibility of businesses involved in armaments production, which produces foreseeable, but unintended harm regardless of good business practices (Mahoney 1990, p.545; Gowri 2004, p.33). For the UK, these issues are magnified in scope and intensity because apart from having one of the largest armaments industries in the world, with its leading company BAE Systems, the growing interconnectedness of economies, cultures, and governments worldwide implies a global societal impact. Given the benefits and harm associated with armaments production, can its development, construction and sale be a fully justified business activity As this essay will argue, these activities, although not inherently good acts are morally indifferent business practices. Hence, using the principle of double effect and Gowri's (2004, pp.40-41) concept of moral externalities, the development, production and sale of armaments can be considered a fully justified business activity. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of businesses to ensure that they manufacture armaments only within legitimately accepted circumstances. The Business of Armaments AND Britain Occupying a sizeable share of the British manufacturing sector, the armaments industry's importance for the country is undeniable. As Havemann (1998, p.242) notes, for a medium-sized economy that is highly dependent on trade such as the United Kingdom, armaments constitutes a significant part of the economy, with major players like BAE Systems, ranking 4th globally in the world in 2004 (Dunne and Surry 2006, p. 421) and UK arms production amounting to $19.2 billion in total sales in 2000, alone (Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute [SIPRI] 2003). Economically speaking, these statistics translate to several macroeconomic and microeconomic benefits to the United Kingdom (Havemann 1998, p. 242). First, given its large share within manufacturing, the armaments industry has been reported to provide a significant amount of jobs, with 155,000 workers directly employed in arms producing activities and 150,000 indirectly working within the arms production supply chain (SIPRI 2003). Armaments production also helps boost the country's export performance, with companies like BAE Systems exporting 80% of its total sales, British arms exports generated $6.7 in 2000 (SIPRI 2003), significantly contributing to the UK's annual trade balance. Furthermore, with supply chain links in related industries such as information technology, systems integration, aerospace, and metallurgy, as well as the oil and gas sectors, it is clear that arms producing activities are vital elements of the UK's economic well being. Apart from economic benefits, arms producing activities in the United Kingdom also present several political and strategic advantages. First, as outlined in the Strategic Defence Review (1998), the United Kingdom has taken an active and definitive role in seeking and maintaining worldwide peace, stating its desire to "become a force for good" and "[not] stand idly by and watch humanitarian disasters or aggression of dictators go unchecked" (cited from Hartley 2002, p.202). In order to achieve this, however, the UK must be recognised as a world power and maintain its influence abroad - a task, which can be achieved by improving capability through the development, production, and sales of armaments. Second, arms producing activities by British companies are also necessary to maintain at least an operational independence with respect to its capability. As Quinlan (2006, p.631) explains, maintaining a strong and independent capability is necessary to cover the United Kingdom in insurance situations where the country may be forced to launch military strikes as a last resort, in cases where the United States may abandon its position as the world's leading peacekeeping nation. Finally, the country's arms production and arms trade also acts as strong counterweights to nations, which may threaten the UK's well-being (Havemann 1998, p.241). As the previous paragraphs illustrate, arms producing activities provide benefits not only limited to the economic profits workers, businesses, and the British economy reap from armaments production; but it also extends to strategic and defensive advantages, improving the UK's capabilities in protecting the homeland and its allies, saving lives in the process. However, despite these benefits, one cannot ignore its harmful effects on society. The small and light arms produced by businesses, for example, often find its way into British streets, fuelling armed violence. In 2002, domestic gun-related crimes reportedly increased by 35% (Thompson 2003). As these crimes grow, its casualties also increase, thereby endangering the lives of British citizens, or at the very least, constraining their lifestyle. Such effects however, are not limited within British society. With British companies engaging in global transactions and exporting their products worldwide to clients who may or may not use these weapons judiciously or re-export them illegally, British companies are indirectly contributing to global violence, destroying the lives of millions around the world. BAE Systems subsidiary Heckler and Koch, for example, sold 1,000 machine guns to the Turkish company MKEK, who in turn sold most of them to the Indonesian police during the height of the East Timor crisis (Oxfam 2003). Unfortunately, BAE Systems' experience with Indonesia is not an isolated case. Statistically, 68% of UK arms sales have been known to find its way to countries like India, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all of which are known as repressive regimes with poor human rights records (Havemann 1998, p.242). Thus, British arms are often used in violent conflicts - killing civilians, damaging properties, and helping oppressive regimes dominate its citizens. British Armaments Industry: A Justified Business As already illustrated, armaments producing activities generate consequences that cannot be contained within the economic sphere alone, but instead necessarily permeates into the societal sphere affecting the lives of citizens here and abroad, such that armaments makers in developing, producing, and selling arms are indirectly responsible for the perpetuation of global and domestic violence. Consequently, the presence of these negative effects cast an ethical dimension on arms production itself. The problem however, is that these businesses cannot simply take moral highroad because as profit-maximising organisms, their survival lies in making and selling weapons that will satisfy its customers. Hence, it is unreasonable for businesses dealing with the development, production, and sale of armaments to cease investing in these activities simply because as Saul (1994) puts it, "as long as it is one's business, it is necessary to keep selling more as well as 'more effective' weapons to stay in business" (pp.30-32 cited in Gowri 2004, p.40). For armaments producing companies, this means producing weapons that are more effective and more lethal, while expanding their markets to increase their customer base to foreign governments and private purchasers - acts, which although possibly unethical are nonetheless sound business decisions. The ethical dimension of armaments therefore places businesses in a position, involving a difficult choice between conflicting values. Thus, the question: can armaments production be an ethically justified business activity As Havemann (1998, p.243) explains, ethical considerations within the armaments industry must begin with a choice between two competing views of war - the pacifist notion that war and violence is intrinsically wrong, and the just war doctrine, which sees war as necessary evil in favour of the pursuit of justice. In this respect however, choosing the pacifist view on war eliminates any ethical discussion on armaments production because it immediately recognises acts related to war such as the development, production, and sale of armaments, as essentially unethical. It is in this author's opinion, however, that war is not intrinsically wrong. As history has taught us, war can be justified as a last resort in an effort to defend peace, such that insofar as "sustained attempts at non-violent action fail to protect the innocent against fundamental injustice, then legitimate political authorities are permitted as a last resort to employ limited force to rescue the innocent and establish justice" (National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] 1993). The just war doctrine therefore prevails as the appropriate criteria in this scenario implying the possibility of an ethically justified use of limited force. Consequently, this illustrates a situation where armaments can also be of legitimate and ethical use, rejecting contentions that its production is intrinsically wrong. Concluding that an act is not intrinsically wrong, however, does not indicate that it is ethical. Nevertheless, it does indicate that an act can be ethically justified. Since it has already been established that armaments producing activities can be ethically justified, how do businesses go about it As ethicists have suggested, in situations where an act produces harmful consequences together with the attainment of a good, an ethical evaluation requires subjecting the act to the doctrine of double effect. According to the doctrine, A person may licitly perform an action that he forsees will produce a good and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time: (1) that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent; (2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended; (3) that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect; (4) that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. (Mangan 1949, p.43). In subjecting armaments production to the doctrine of double effect, one can conclude that the act of developing, producing, and selling armaments itself are not intrinsically wrong, but rather morally indifferent business practices, which are neither good nor bad. Insofar as the business itself is concerned, they are merely converting inputs into outputs, which in the end will produce a final product. Second, insofar as intention is concerned, while it is true that violence and other harms associated with armaments will not ensue if businesses cease their arms producing activities, it cannot be denied that these harmful effects, though undesirable, are unintended by the businesses producing them (Gowri 2004, p.40). The businesses' intentions in developing, producing, selling arms, provided they are legitimate organizations exercising sound practices, are therefore simple - profits, such that armaments producing businesses do not intend to cause violence and war. Thus, the negative effects produced are unavoidable moral externalities resulting from the development, production, and sale of armaments. As Gowri defines it, moral externalities are "morally significant consequences that seem to escape ethical reckoning about what is owed by an actor", such that they are situations that "defy our capacity to assign responsibility for preventable harm" (p.40). Furthermore, the harmful effects caused by armaments production are also not the means through which the good effects are achieved. The profits businesses make, as well as the jobs it produces, for example are not attained through war, but rather through the business transactions resulting from armaments production. With respect to the strategic and defensive advantages, these are achieved simply by possession of the armaments. The third criterion of the double effect doctrine is therefore sufficed by armaments producing activities. Last, the good effects of armaments production outweigh its harmful consequences. As illustrated by the just war doctrine, our commitment to maintain and protect peace is a far greater good than our duty to avoid violence, such that it is recognised an "inalienable obligation" in our world (NCCB 1993). Thus, if weapons are sometimes necessary to defend peace, correct injustices, and protect the United Kingdom and its citizens' well-being, then the costs of war, although undeniably great should only be secondary to the good that comes from it. Conclusion Ethics within the British armaments industry is therefore an issue that cannot be ignored. It compels us to explore the conflicting values of profit-maximisation and social responsibility, while asking whether the development, production, and sale of armaments are a fully justified business activity. At the same time it compels us to confront the vast grey area surrounding the armaments industry and decide whether businesses dealing with the development, production and sale of armaments should be held ethically responsible for the unintended consequences their activities produce. Armaments producing activities, as a morally indifferent business activity is therefore ethically justified because despite the unavoidable harmful consequences, it nonetheless produces positive effects which outweigh its negative effects. However, as Gowri (2004, p.41) argues, just because an act is ethically justified, the harmful consequences it produces do not vanish even if they are unintended or unavoidable. Thus, for society who will still experience the harms brought about by arms producing activities, there is still a need to prevent these harms, or at the very least minimise its effects. Furthermore, since the negative consequences mentioned are moral externalities, the businesses developing, producing, and selling armaments cannot be held solely responsible. References Dunne, JP & Surry, E 2003, Arms production, SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gowri, A 2004, 'When responsibility can't do it', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp.33-50. Hartley, K 2002, 'UK defence policy: A triumph of hope over experience', New Economy, vol. 9, no.4, pp. 199-205. Havemann, C 1998, 'Ethical business around the world: Hawks or doves The ethics of UK arms exports', Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 7, no.4, pp. 240-244. Lawrence, A, Weber, J & Post, J 2005, Business and society: Stakeholder relations, ethics and public policy, 11th edn, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York. Mahoney, J 1990, 'An international look at business ethics: Britain', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 545-550. Mangan, J 1949, 'An historical analysis of the principle of double effect', Theological Studies, vol. 10, pp. 41-61. National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) 1993, 'The harvest of justice is sown in peace', A reflection of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the tenth anniversary of The Challenge of Peace, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Washington, D.C. [Accessed 20 November 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: . Oxfam 2003, Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA call on UK government to control arms, media release, Oxfam, London, 9 October. [Accessed 20 November 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: . Quinlan, M 2006, 'The future of United Kingdom nuclear weapons: shaping the debate', International Affairs, vol. 82, no. 4, pp.627-637. Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) 2003, Volume of arms production, export sales, and employment in the arms industry: France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, 1991-2000. Retrieved 20 November 2006, from . Thompson, T 2003, 'Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain', The Observer, 5 October, [Accessed 20 November 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: < http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,,1056411,00.html>. Read More