Primary and Ancillary Ethical Dilemmas - Essay Example

The ancillary ethical dilemma of the case was the invoking of Executive Privilege by President Obama that made Attorney General Eric Holder withhold the documents that were asked by the request eventually led him to be cited for contempt by Congress at a vote of 255 to 67.

In implementing “Operation Fast and Furious” I would make a timetable where I would expect results that would justify the operation. One year would be a reasonable allowance to expect results whether to continue the program or not. If within one year there are encouraging arrests of the cartels, then the operation could be continued because it is serving its purpose. But if one year has lapsed and it did not satisfy its justification, then the program should be scrapped.

Before delving into the ethical system that I would use to support my resolution, it is important to note that Eric Holder’s “Operation Fast and the Furious” is an offshoot of Project Gunrunner which deals with criminals and cartels. The ethical system that would be used in the case should be grounded on reality and pragmatism that is applicable in fighting crimes.

Having said that, there are two ethical systems that I would use; the first is the hypothetical imperative, and the other, is utilitarianism. Hypothetical imperative presupposed the necessity of a certain action depending on the conditions that would make such action an imperative (Pollock, 2012). For example, if we want to nourish ourselves, we have to eat. In the same manner that if we want criminality (in this case, gunrunning and the cartel) to end, then we have to do something that would put them behind bars. There may be undesirable acts that are necessary (such as letting guns walk on the street) but if the outcome outweighs the risk (utilitarian) of not interdicting illegal firearm sales and it meets the objective of arresting cartels, then the means are justified (Pollock, 2012) and I would continue the operation.

In this case, I do not question the ethical ground of “Operation Fast and the Furious”. I agree with the philosophical premise of the operation of really going after the heads of the cartels to put an end to gun running once and for all (hypothetical imperative). Letting gun runners go scot-free for a moment to build a stronger case may be justifiable if that would lead to the arrest of the leaders of the cartels (utilitarian). But when there are loose firearms that could not be tracked and no leaders had been arrested, it is already an indication that the program “Operation Fast and the Furious” has failed and therefore must be stopped. More when the guns that were sold through the program were found in violent crimes culminating in the killing of a border police officer where he was shot by a gun acquired through “Operation Fast and Furious”.

In assessing the ethical validity of “Operation Fast and the Furious” the act of selling guns to criminals must serve its purpose which would lead to the arrest of the heads of the cartels. The outcome of the operation must far outweigh the risk. When these two conditions are not met, the operation lost its ethical justification and thus has to be stopped. 

After a year that the operation did not lead to the arrest of the cartels, the operation should have been stopped already. Also, when the guns that were sold illegally were found to be present in violent crimes both in the US and Mexico, the intent of the operation was already defeated and it has already lost its ethical justification and thus, should be stopped. Yet they continued it for another year (until 2011) when it was not working. This was aggravated when a border police officer was shot with a rifle purchased as a result of the program. The risk or damage done by the program far outweigh the utilitarian benefit and was no longer serving any purpose (hypothetical imperative) and therefore should have been stopped.