Kant, Mill and Socrates (Meno) on deontology and utilitarian scenario - Essay Example

The actions taken if Bin Laden is still the active head of Al Qaeda and seeking to dispatch further terrorists for destruction would require specific actions. This would be based first on the ideologies of morality and what the responses would be in terms of deontological and utilitarian theories. Examining these various perspectives can give light into the best actions while providing a path that is based on the right step to morality while looking at the different expectations and approaches to the right actions and specific components that would change the outcome of the situation. When looking at deontological thinking which comes through Kant, there is the moral obligation of acting toward the concept of universal law. The duty – based ethics are considerate of the situation, as opposed to the end result and are based on creating duties that abide by specific laws. More important, the duty is based on doing to others what they would do unto you. From the deontological response, there would not be a response that is violent or which tries to cause harm to anyone in Al Qaeda. The first reason is because it is assumed that there are men, women and children that may be harmed with an attack or violent component to Al Qaeda, which would unnecessarily hurt others. The second is because the terrorists may seek destruction, but the attacks in recent times were not launched, making the attack only one of revenge. This doesn’t follow a moral obligation or right. The only fair way to act with the deontological morality as the basis is to find Al Qaeda and to take two approaches. The first would be to arrest him and hold trial for the past problems which have arisen. However, to do this, there would need to be consideration from the government where Al Qaeda is hiding. The second would be to find where the individuals are, make sure there are substantial evidence, then try to take the individuals without violent actions so they can be detained and questioned. This particular approach is one that is justified and is morally just according to the approach, specifically because it doesn’t harm others, it holds to human rights and universal truth and it doesn’t create any conflicting duties because it abides by because laws of justice. The one aspect of the deontological morality which can be used to justify the al Qaeda concepts and to take action is based on the ability to act for human rights and universal truth. There is the ability for the government to act within the means of offering a justification and trying to stop the attacks from happening. Since there is information on where the location of al Qaeda is, as well as alternatives that are known about the specific approach, there is also the ability to create a tactic and set of techniques that will stop any further attacks without harming the individuals which are surrounding the area and which may become victim to the attacks unnecessarily. The ideals of Kant with the deontological viewpoint would be opposed from the utilitarianist approach. In this instance, there is the focus on actions promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. In the scenario, the approach would be to attack al Qaeda and to use whatever means necessary to stop them from functioning. Violent outbreaks, the need to attack the space in which they are in and responding in terms of moral rights that are based on clear cut actions would be justified. If it is expected that al Qaeda is expecting to dispatch destruction on various targets worldwide, then the moral thing to do would be to stop them from acting and to ensure that they don’t harm the majority of the nations that would be involved in the attacks. Even though this would mean that some casualties would occur that held a sense of innocence, there would still be the ability to save the greatest number of people by blockading the attacks. Even though this specific approach would create a direct attack, there are also assumptions which are considered and which state that there are unknowns with stopping al Qaeda. The ideal that they will move toward destruction worldwide is one that is assumed by intelligence officials from various pieces of evidence. However, there isn’t evidence over what will happen, when it will occur and whether the attacks will hurt any individual or happen. The assumption made is that by launching a violent attack first, it will block the destruction worldwide. However, this assumption doesn’t have an understanding of whether this will move toward helping the greater goods and means. The utilitarianist principles recognize this aspect of the morality because of the inability to predict or estimate quantities of the greater good. However, the assumption is that the intent is for the greater good of the majority of people, as stated in rule utilitarianism, making an attack justified for the end means. The only way in which the utilitarian principles can’t be used is if rule utilitarianism is used over action. In this instance, human rights and the greater good would have to be looked at in terms of prohibiting specific actions while allowing others to occur. Instead of launching only a violent attack, there would be the need to create a response by justifying all actions of the military and finding the best way to stop the attacks with a strategy, as opposed to direct and violent actions. In this instance, the individual actions will be based on the institutional decision of the government to take actions which will cause the least harm and which will stop further attacks from al Qaeda from occurring. The concept of Al Qaeda launching a specific attack can also be looked at in terms of Socrates’ Meno. The concept which is associated with this is the ideology of virtue which applies to each individual and justice, which applies to temperance. From this viewpoint, the concept of attacking Al Qaeda and acting on the knowledge has to come from the intelligence officials, leadership of the United States and the others that are making the decision. When looking at the several perspectives, as well as the concept of virtue for the United States government, there is a specific role and concept of justice which has to be withheld. The morality isn’t about the individual beliefs, greater good or the need to create a specific moral position. Instead, it is dependent on the justification that one has when belonging to a specific position. The concept of virtue, according to the Meno, is one which is defined by the government and the place that they have. If looking at the history of al Qaeda, there is a history of attacks, injuries and violence that has taken place. This is one that has not been justified and which has caused harm to the United States and continues to move throughout the world with acts of violence. This creates the United States in a state of being a victim and one which is not able to have a sense of justice with the specific actions which have been taken. More important, the role that the United States government has, specifically in terms of the military and intelligence, is to create a space that protects and defends the country. From this viewpoint, the only justice that is taken is based on creating an attack against al Qaeda and approaching a specific approach to overcoming the injustices which have taken place. Even though this is the only specific morality based on the obligations and sense of virtue, there are also several aspects of morality in terms of the United States government. Strategies, tactics and the understanding of justice in terms of the government are the basis of this, all which determine whether an attack is justified and what this causes in terms of human rights. The situation is one which becomes more complex in terms of defining virtue, specifically because the situation also involves other countries, human rights in those countries and the agreements which are required with this situation. The morality, virtue and justice will then have to be defined by the obligations of the various countries as well as the expectations with foreign relations and what this means for launching an attack or finding a way to act virtuously in the situation according to the justified laws. The concepts that are associated with these three different types of laws are based on finding minimal to maximum action. The difference between all three is inclusive of the strategy which should be taken, specifically which is associated with the morality that one has. The strategy in deontology is based on finding diplomatic measures to stop future attacks. This is completely opposite of the utilitarian attack, which would be inclusive of stopping the al Qaeda group with any means necessary. The most balanced is that of Socrates, specifically because the virtue and the justice is defined by the situation, what this means to the government and the factors which are involved. From this point of view, all three types of virtue and morality can combine to bring a sense of justice. For true morality to be reached in terms of the al Qaeda group and the expectations to launch a different attack there needs to be an evaluation and understanding of the situation, specifically with perspectives that are defined by the moral and countries legalities and justices which are involved. This needs to be combined with the basic understanding of human rights as well as how this changes the perspective and what will happen, as well as whether the harm which may occur to victims is considered moral for the greater good. Weighing in these various factors and creating an understanding of how to create a situation which is virtuous and which allows each strategy to take place effectively can help to create a different outcome with the given situation. In any of the moral instances and strategies, there can’t be a complete evaluation of what is justified and acceptable, specifically because each comes with assumptions of what will happen in the outcome. The information provided by intelligence is based on an assumption that al Qaeda is preparing attacks. It is also assumed that there are citizens surrounding the area and that harm may be the main outcome if an attack is launched. Further more, there isn’t a complete understanding if al Qaeda is in the location and if anything can be done. With the unknowns, the most important part is to plan a strategy to find information and to begin to act with the foreign government and others for a strategy that causes the best response and a sense of bringing justice to the situation. 2. The suggestion of seeking revenge on Bin Laden so he is crippled and incapacitated by intelligence is one that needs to be considered from various perspectives as well. If Bin Laden is not in charge and not a threat, then it changes the actions which need to be taken and also alters the theories and how they apply to the specific condition in which Bin Laden is in, as well as the regards to which strategies and actions should be taken. According to the deontology perspective, bringing Bin Laden in incapacitated and crippled is against human rights and can’t be justified. The justification which most would bring is based on the ideology that he attacked others with terrorist attacks in the past. However, revenge is not based on universal morality and isn’t acceptable in any instance. If he is not a threat and doesn’t impose global warfare on others, then it can’t be justified that any attack is given. However, it doesn’t change the strategies and actions which can be taken. Considering the assumptions about his attacks, Bin Laden can still be found, brought into court and his actions can be justified with an attempt to stop further potential attacks in a reasonable manner. The utilitarian perspective would also have to change. If Bin Laden is a threat, then decapitating him isn’t acceptable. This isn’t justified because there isn’t reasonable proof that he is doing anything incorrect and there isn’t a reasonable attempt for him to act. Many would state that bringing Bin Laden in decapitated is justified because of past harm he has caused. However, at this point in time, he is not harming anyone or going against human rights. Furthermore, there was never complete and reasonable evidence that Bin Laden was in charge of all the terrorist attacks, with specific statements from Bin Laden that he didn’t launch the 9/11 attacks. Decapitating him is also making assumptions and leads to a lack of understanding and truth. From the utilitarian perspective, any action would be unlawful and immoral. The concept of Socrates’ and Menos can also be considered with this. This is the only moral viewpoint which would not change. The virtue of the government is based on justifying actions and bringing specific problems to justice, even if it is from the past. From this perspective, Bin Laden is at fault for the attacks which were made and for the terrorist group which goes against the government. Even though there is not a current threat or attack, the virtue of the government is based on stopping any potential threats or harm which would occur. The past actions of Bin Laden as well as the current terrorist threats coming from other regions all make it acceptable to harm Bin Laden, even if he isn’t a threat. The virtue of the government is then withheld with being able to assist the United States in remaining protected. From the viewpoint of Bin Laden not being of harm and not launching an attack, the deontological and utilitarian viewpoints make it unacceptable to decapitate him and to stop him from further actions. While other strategies can be taken and assumed to help with prevention of further attacks, any violent attack would be unacceptable and couldn’t be justified, other than for a sense of vengeance that can’t be proven. The only way in which these actions could be justified is through the sense of morality with the virtue of the United States government, which is designated to support the country from all potential attacks. 3. If there are civilian casualties around and in the house that are heavy, then it changes the perspective of what moral actions need to be taken with Bin Laden and the al Qaeda group. The main objective needs to be based on a strategy that stops the problems and warfare and which helps to create a distinct change in the actions which are being taken. Rather than a threat to a global attack; however, there is distinct proof that the actions which al Qaeda are taking are causing harm to others, which causes the moral obligations to be based not only on the threats of terrorism, but also with direct and known actions which are causing harm. The objectives which would be taken from a deontological viewpoint would still be based on finding a strategy way to stop the problem without causing casualties. The duty based regulations is based on the fact that the actions taken by al Qaeda are causing harm to others. The duty is to protect the civilians who have been taken as victims, specifically because the actions are based on moral obligations of justice, virtue and protection of those who can’t help themselves. Instead of creating a response that is more diplomatic, the strategy which would be used would be based on assisting those who have lost human rights to the terrorist attacks and which would be justified by the absolute known of those who are being harmed. The utilitarian perspective would take the same perspective as the deontological viewpoint, specifically with a strategy where the ends justify the means. If there are civilian casualties, then these need to be stopped. The protection for the greater good can be estimated by number, specifically because it can be seen that there are civilians that are being hurt, including women, children and the elderly. Any violent actions that are taken work toward the greater good by protecting victims and stopping others from moving forward with the complexities which would occur with the civilian casualties. However, in this instance, the violence taken would need to be to stop the terrorist attacks, as opposed to stopping the entire situation with violence as this will only cause more casualties and harms and the human rights will be violated in the same manner. The morality of Socrates would also have this same concept. However, the alteration would be that the government in Pakistan is also responsible for assisting those who have been harmed by the terrorist group. The civilians are from the region and it becomes the duty and virtue of the Pakistan government to assist those who are in the country, specifically because it is justified to protect those who live in the region. The United States becomes involved from the perspective of the violation of human rights and protection which is regarded as a part of its own country. However, there would need to be a direct association with the virtue which is regarded as a part of both of the governments. Even though the actions wouldn’t alter with this definition of virtue, it would involve different parties because of the various responsibilities which are a part of the scenario. Read More