Should you stay or should you go?
An examination of the ethics of illegal immigration and states
Congress is considering a bill which grants legal status to high school graduates who came to the country before they turn sixteen and have lived here for at least five years.
Why is it appropriate to make an exception for students alone? The truth is that the answer may tell us something about the value of citizenship, as well as why states have the right to confer citizenship upon some persons while denying it for others. Read more
How to dismantle an atomic bomb(ing)
For the first time, the United States will send an ambassador to attend the ceremony in Hiroshima marking the anniversary of the atomic bombings during World War II. Some critics think that this is tantamount to a US apology.
Signs of sympathy toward Japanese suffering could be seen as criticism of the U.S. decision to drop the bombs — viewed by many Americans as a pragmatic move to hasten the end of the war that the U.S. entered after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
This seems like a very weak argument. Even if the atomic bombings of Japan were morally permissible, they were at best unfortunate necessities of war (in fact, we could say this about any act of war). Even the most ardent supporter of dropping the bomb should admit that it is simply the least horrific choice out of a regretful handful of alternatives. This being the case, sympathy and grief toward the victims of the bomb is not only compatible with support for the decision to drop the bomb, but is probably a morally obligatory addendum to the act itself. Read more
WikiLeaks: a new breed of leak?
WikiLeaks and its documents are here. What do we do now?
On Monday, Sam highlighted WikiLeaks’ enormous release of secret documents concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan, and US efforts in and relations with both countries. As he noted, one of the first questions we should ask is whether or not WikiLeaks’ document release is legal.
Obviously, the cat is out of the bag: WikiLeaks and its documents, for good or for bad, are here. The bigger question now is how governments and citizens will respond.
Leaks, even large ones, are not unheard of (think Pentagon Papers). To answer both this question, and the earlier one to which Sam pointed, we need to determine if this leak is unlike any previous ones—and whether deserves a unique response as a result. Read more
Crimes against humanity: with oppression and injustice for most
For his role in 16,000 deaths during the Khmer Rouge, Kaing Guek Eav, alias “Duch,” was recently sentenced to 35 years in prison. That he may walk free in 19 years at the age of 86 due to time served has baffled and infuriated Cambodians. The worst tyrants of the last century mostly escaped formal justice (Hitler, Stalin, Mao); others did die in ignominious circumstances and were effectively the victims of mob violence (Mussolini, Ceausescu, arguably Saddam). Duch’s case and surprisingly light sentence brings to mind the perennial question of justice for politically-motivated atrocities.
We seem to know what crimes against humanity are when we see them. But the story is often more complicated in places like the most impoverished parts of the Third World, where politics is a life-or-death affair. Interest groups are divided along ethnic, class, or religious fault lines and power is a means to extract resources for the favored group at the expense of all others. An old Kenyan aphorism holds that to seize the machinery of the state means that “it is our turn to eat.” In these cases murder, rape and torture may become routine tools of political intimidation.
How do we evaluate crimes against humanity and the justice that should follow when the only clear distinction between victim and victimizer is that the latter is stronger than the other, and when it seems likely that the other side would behave just as monstrously if the circumstances permitted?
-Charles
Photo by Flickr user Sebr used under a Creative Commons Attribution license
James Bond out on bond
Espionage and the rule of law
A group of Russians working for a Russian company were charged recently with corporate espionage after they were found hacking into the databases of American companies in New York and Washington, D.C. A few years back a group of Russians working for an American company committed the same crime against Russian businesses in Moscow and St. Petersburg; they were convicted and sent to jail.
Just as preparations for a trial began, the U.S. and Russian governments arranged a deal whereby the group in American would be sent to Russia, and vice versa, and everyone would live freely, away from jail or further prosecution. Sounds fishy, right?
While this scenario never happened, something very close to it did if we take the “corporate” out of “corporate espionage,” replace “hacking” with “going to parties,” and look at the spy swap that occurred after charges were brought against the group of Russia spies.
What are we to make of the fact that regular, official espionage (as opposed to the corporate kind) exists almost entirely apart from domestic and international law? Why is this the case?
The nuclear arsenal and promise-keeping
An article in the L.A. Times reports that the Obama administration plans to greatly increase spending on the nuclear arsenal. Obama has made the reduction of nuclear weapons a serious and oft-repeated promise both during his campaign and throughout his time in office so far. Indeed, the plan calls for a reduction in the amount of weapons in the arsenal. Unfortunately that reduction in number is accompanied by $175 billion over the next twenty years to spend on new weapons, testing facilities, and increasing the longevity of the weapons we already have.
It also comes as a rather unpleasant surprise that administration officials defend the spending by “argu[ing] that even as they reduce the number of U.S. warheads, they need to bolster the government’s ability to increase weapons production quickly if a new threat arises.”
It’s time to proceed with a full program of nuclear disarmament. The current policy and future plans are merely an empty gesture. Those who fear that such a comprehensive program would do irreconcilable damage to our national security should realize that the last time nuclear deterrence was thought of as a sound policy was during the Cold War. More importantly, every promise we break on nuclear policy damages our international reputation.
The Obama administration has consistently taken the stance that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a danger to everyone and vowed to do its fair share in reducing that danger. The new budget is a sign that they have not remained true to that stance. Reducing the number of warheads while drastically increasing the budget and researching new weapons is a hypocrisy that cheapens the value of our voice in the international community, particularly those statements we have made concerning the danger of nuclear weapons and the necessity of their strict control.
This kind of discrepancy between words and action is not only wrong; it will also hurt our credibility as a worldwide, often aggressive advocate for nonproliferation.
As a world leader, the U.S. needs to send a stronger message about the use of nuclear weapons.
-Ethan
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user mightyohm
Philosophizing cloth
The Muslim burqa and equal rights
On The New York Times’ The Stone, its new philosophy commentary series, University of Chicago Professor Martha Nussbaum wrote in response to Spain’s recent, narrow rejection of a ban on public wearing of the Muslim burqa. She gives a quick history of what Western political philosophy has said on the topics of equal rights and free exercise before examining five arguments commonly made in support of this sort of ban.
Her responses to the arguments are certainly convincing. Nussbaum effectively demonstrates the inconsistency or hypocrisy in Western resistance to burqas, and anyone who reads the piece is more likely to dislike the idea of banning burqas.
But her most compelling point is also the most unique: Westerners cannot seem to recognize the inconsistency of their arguments against burqas because they are Westerners, burqa-wearing is not traditionally Western, and burqa-wearers are not viewed as traditionally Western.
The morality of espionage
When is is it justifiable?
Earlier this week, Marc commented the arrest of ten individuals for allegedly being involved in a Russian spy ring. The case is somewhat humorous in that the spies did not seem to be snooping for information of any significant worth; but, in any case, the incident raises some interesting ethical questions. For instance, when do the benefits of the intelligence obtained from espionage outweigh the deceptive means used to obtain that information? In their article Ethics and Morality in US Intelligence Arthur Hulnick and Daniel Mattausch explain that one can use Just War theory for determining the circumstances under which spying is permissible. Read more
Who deserves to win?
Upon witnessing Ghana’s soccer victory against the U.S. on Saturday, I couldn’t help but wonder if it was better that Ghana had won. If history can be trusted, the winners of international athletic contests over a broad range of events tend to be large, rich countries. The predominance of the United States, China, and Russia in the Olympic Games is ample evidence of this. On the other hand, the more specialized World Cup appears to be one contest in which the inherent advantages of larger and richer countries are partly nullified, and where the talent and dedication of humbler countries have the opportunity to shine. Nonetheless, no African country has ever won a World Cup, and Ghana is the only African country in the finals. In light of this, perhaps Ghana’s victory over the U.S. was more meaningful to Ghanaians than the U.S.’s victory would have been for Americans. Should such a utilitarian consideration drive one’s hopes and expectations for athletic contests, or should nationalistic sympathies take precedence? When should we root for the underdogs?
-Charles
Photo by Flickr user TrumpetFlickr used under a Creative Commons Attribution license
It’s hard to be a saint in the (war-torn) city
How much risk should soldiers bear in order to minimize civilian casualties?
According to the New York Times, even before General McChrystal’s firing, American troops abroad were uneasy with his strategy of counterinsurgency. Many soldiers think that the General’s insistence on tightening the rules of engagement in order to minimize civilian casualties has put American troops at risk. When fighting a terrorist enemy unafraid to hide within civilian populations, Americans must withhold their military superiority in order to protect civilians. This means eschewing artillery strikes or air support in favor of risky urban warfare.
While McChrystal’s reasons are surely more strategic than ethical, it is important to ask whether American soldiers have a responsibility to put themselves at risk for the sake of foreign civilians. After all, it is not uncommon for Americans to think “our” troops are more important than “their” civilians.
The combatant/civilian distinction exists in order to restrain the scope of war. War should be a relation between nations (or perhaps sub-national groups), and combatants are the armed emissaries of their nations. Civilians, without the ability to harm, are not directly part of the war effort, and therefore are not liable to be killed. Combatants, on the other hand, not only acquire the ability to harm, but have also implicitly taken on the risks of war. War, brought by combatants, is thrust upon civilians. Thus, combatants should take the brunt of the risk associated with war.
Arguably, the reason terrorism is so objectionable is because it seeks to erode the combatant/civilian distinction. Our moral repugnance toward terrorist attacks in New York is no different than our repugnance toward terrorist attacks in London, and so we should remain consistent when considering terrorist attacks in the Middle East. In all three cases the moral opposition is to the killing of civilians not liable to be killed, the nationality of the victims is morally irrelevant. Thus, when conducting our own wars, the combatant/civilian distinction should remain paramount – when fighting terrorism we should be careful not to imitate it.
Share us