ADS452 ETHICS IN
ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 8
CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL
CHALLENGES TO
MORALITY
NADRAWINA ISNIN>2014
LESSON OUTCOMES
At the end of the chapter, you
should be able to:
Explain the issue of violence,
terrorism & war from an ethical
perspective;
Explain the ethical issues in the
context of globalization;
Explain the ethical perspective of
power & status differentials
CONTENTS
8.1 Violence, Terrorism
& War
8.2 Globalization
8.3 Power & Status
Differentials
Introduction
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Violence, Terrorism
& War
8.1
What is Violence?:
Violence is the physical or psychological attack on,
or the vigorous abuse of, persons, causing their
suffering, injury, or death
Violence
can also involve the destroying or
damaging of property
Violence is considered prima facie wrongwrong
unless there are good reasons for thinking it morally
permissible. Thus people often speak of war and
other modes of violence as things to be resorted to,
actions to be taken only after other options are
exhausted (Vaughn).
Violence is thought to be wrong for several
reasons:
Some argue that violence constitutes a violation of
peoples
rightstheir
right
to
life,
selfdetermination, respect as a person, or immunity
from harm
Another view is that violence is wrong because it
runs afoul of the moral principles of justice,
freedom, and utility (human welfare).
The consequentialist position is that violence is
(generally) wrong because its bad consequences
(usually) outweigh the good (Vaughn).
Use of physical force to cause
injury to another/others.
Eg: physical assault, shootings,
bombings etc...
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Causes of
Violence
Level of Income
Majority of violent deaths occur
in poor nations;
Violence also occurs mostly in
poor neighborhoods;
Violence can also be linked to
economic downturn.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Causes of
Violence
Soweto, South
Africa
Causes of
Violence
Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
Causes of
Violence
Media
Movies, tv shows & games play a
causal role in violence;
Children are the most vulnerable
they are easily influenced;
Unable to distinguish fiction from
reality.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Causes of
Violence
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Ethical Theories &
Violence
Utilitarianism:
Weigh the harms caused by
violence with the supposed good;
E.g. Killing an intruder VS killing
people for profit.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Ethical Theories &
Violence
KMT:
Evaluate from perspective of using
persons or doing something
irrational;
E.g. Saying that my killing is
permissible but others in similar
situations are not.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
TERRORISM
Definitions:
U.S Dept of State:
Premeditated,
politically motivated violence perpetrated
against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,
usually intended to influence an audience.
U.S Dept of Defence: The calculated use of
violence or threat of violence to inculcate
fear;
intended
to
coerce/intimidate
governments/societies in the pursuit of
goals that are generally political, religious
or ideological.
Terrorism is violence against
noncombatants for political,
religious, or ideological ends.
The
key
question
that
terrorism provokes is, What
should
be
our
moral
response to it? Should it
always and everywhere be
condemned?
Or is terrorism sometimes
justified?
One way to grapple with
terrorism is to try to apply
the requirements of just war
theory to terrorist acts.
Many philosophers argue that
by the lights of just war
theory, terrorism is never
morally permissible.
Others contend that it is
possible for terrorism to meet
just war criteria and thereby
prove itself justified.
Even without reference to
just war theory, some argue
that terrorism is always
wrong because it violates the
victims right to be treated as
moral persons, or because it
is an indiscriminate attack on
the innocent (Vaughn).
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
A consequentialist moral theory would likely
condone terrorism if it maximized happiness or
welfare for all concerned, but in actual cases
this requirement may make terrorism very
difficult to justify.
Torture is the intentional inflicting of severe
pain or suffering on people to punish or
intimidate them or to extract information from
them. Three issues dominate the debates over
the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work?
(2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? and (3)
What should be the states policy regarding the
use of torture?
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Motivations for Terrorism
Rational
Calculates the effectiveness of the
means to their ends.
Have sufficient historical &
political sense to know what
means will & will not work.
May even give up terrorist
measures if they get in the way of
reaching the goal.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Psychological
Involves certain aspects of their
personalities.
Some are unhappy with their life
prospects.
They find meaning in belonging to
& being accepted by their group.
Demonise others which makes
others acceptable targets.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Cultural
Involves certain cultural beliefs that
are difficult for others to appreciate.
Willingness to be martyrs & belief
that their actions are divinely
sanctioned.
See outsiders as a threat to their
way of life & values.
Feel that terrorism is the only way
to influence
the state of affairs.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Ethics of Terrorism
Consequentialist:
Argument:
The end is thought to justify the
means.
Counter-argument:
Do the benefits/good outweigh the
harm/suffering caused by the
means?
Have these means produced the
desired effects?
Inviolability
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
of civilians &
Utilitarianism:
Argument:
Violence can achieve a
peaceable good end.
Counter-argument:
Does not violence beget / result
in violence?
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Non-consequentialist:
Argument:
Use violence against another for
self-defense.
Counter argument:
Civilians & noncombatants
cannot be used by others no
matter how good the terrorists
cause.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
WAR
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread
armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between
individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor
does a feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys.
War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political
communities, defined as those entities which either are states or
intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war).
Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like
the two World Wars.
But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or
communities, like the American Civil War.
Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations, might
also be considered political communities, in that they are
associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of
them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood
in certain lands (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Just War Theory
Ethical issues arising from armed conflicts and the use
of violence for political purposes have been much
discussed in practical ethics during the last few years.
The September 11 terrorist attacks that provoked a
firm reaction from the United States and some of its
allies, are undoubtedly among the main reasons for
the recent popularity of the ethics of war. In the wake
of these attacks, a revival of discussions can be
observed also among ethicist and philosophers
concerning the ethics of war. Therefore, Just War
Theory is probably the most influential perspective on
the ethics of war and peace.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which
in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in
Latin. These parts are:
1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in
the first place; or when is it permissible to use force in international
relations
2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war,
after it has begun; or what are the permissible ways of waging
wars, including the war on terror and
3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements
and the termination phase of war; or what are the obligations of
the victors, especially in the context of building a democratic order
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
What should one do if he sees an
individual attacking an innocent,
defenseless victim?
Answer: one should intervene & do
whatever is necessary to protect the
victim.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Jus ad Bellum
The rules of jus ad bellum are addressed, first and
foremost, to heads of state.
Since political leaders are the ones who
inaugurate wars, setting their armed forces in
motion, they are to be held accountable to jus ad
bellum principles.
If they fail in that responsibility, then they commit
war crimes. In the language of the Nuremberg
prosecutors, aggressive leaders who launch
unjust wars commit crimes against peace.
What constitutes a just or unjust resort to armed
force is disclosed to us by the rules of jus ad
bellum.
Jus ad bellum = justice to war.
Principles that would have to be satisfied for
a nation to be justified in going to war.
Four principles:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Just cause;
Proportionality;
Last resort;
Right intention.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Just cause
There must be a just cause to use
violence/military force;
Preventive strike:
Seeks to prevent future harm;
Preemptive strike:
Respond first to an enemy attack
even if the enemy has not entered
our border.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Proportionality
The possible good caused by using
force must outweigh the likely
harm;
Involves cost benefit analysis &
relative value of:
Going to war;
Other alternatives; &
Doing nothing.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Last resort
Use other means to resolve a
conflict first;
Only use force as a final option
when other means have failed;
Military force is too costly.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Right intention
Use of force should be directed to
the goal set by the cause & to the
eventual goal of peace;
What is done during the conduct of
war is necessary.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Proper Authority & Public
Declaration
Decision to go to war must be made
by the appropriate authorities
(usually specified in the
constitution);
Must follow the proper process;
Declaration must be made public
(to own citizens & enemy state).
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Probability of Success
May not go to war if it foresees
that doing so will not have no
impact on the situation.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Jus in Bello
Jus in bello = justice in war
Principles governing the conduct of
war.
Two principles under JiB:
Proportionality
Discrimination
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Proportionality
No more force than necessary
can be used;
Force used must be
proportionate to the importance
of the cause/objective.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Discrimination
Prohibits direct intentional attack on
noncombatants & nonmilitary
targets;
Two basic elements:
Determine what are & what are
not military targets;
Determine who are & who are not
combatants.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
*Obey all International Laws on
Weapons Prohibition
Chemical
&
biological
weapons
are
prohibited by many treaties;
Nuclear weapons are not clearly forbidden.
Chernobyl Accident 1986 - The April 1986
disaster at the Chernobyla nuclear power
plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed
Soviet reactor design coupled with serious
mistakes made by the plant operatorsb. It
was a direct consequence of Cold War
isolation and the resulting lack of any safety
culture.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
*Benevolent Quarantine for
POWs
Enemy soldiers who surrender or
are captured are no longer lethal
threats;
Cannot target then with death,
torture etc;
Quarantined until end of conflict &
exchanged with own POWs.
Question: do terrorist deserve the
same protection?
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
*No Means Mala in Se
May not use weapons or methods which are
evil in themselves;
E.g.: Genocide, ethnic cleansing, weapons
whose effects cannot be controlled, etc.
Genocide - It is a very specific term, referring
to violent crimes committed against groups
with the intent to destroy the existence of the
group. Human rights, as laid out in the US Bill
of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, concern the
rights of individuals.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Genocide (Holocaust
Encyclopaedia)
In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named
Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) sought to
describe Nazi policies of systematic
murder, including the destruction of
the European Jews. He formed the word
"genocide" by combining geno-, from
the Greek word for race or tribe, with
-cide, derived from the Latin word for
killing. In proposing this new term,
Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated
plan of different actions aiming at the
destruction of essential foundations of
the life of national groups, with the aim
of annihilating the groups themselves."
The
next
year,
the
International Military Tribunal held at
Nuremberg,
Germany,
charged top Nazis with "crimes against
humanity." The word genocide was
included in the indictment, but as a
descriptive, not legal, term.
On December 9, 1948, in the shadow of the
Holocaust and in no small part due to the
tireless efforts of Lemkin himself, the United
Nations approved the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide.
This
convention
establishes
"genocide as an international crime, which
signatory nations undertake to prevent and
punish. It defines genocide as:
[G]enocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group,
as
such:
(a)
Killing
members
of
the
group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members
of
the
group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births
within
the
group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group
to another group.
*No Reprisals
Cannot violate jus in bello to
retaliate against the enemy who
violate jus in bello first.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Jus post bellum
Jus post bellum = justice after war
Principles governing the conduct of
towards the end & after the end of
war.
7 principles under JpB:
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Proportionality & publicity
The peace settlement should be
measured and reasonable, as well
as publicly proclaimed;
Cannot use settlement as an
instrument of revenge;
This rules out insistence on
unconditional surrender.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Rights vindication
The settlement should secure those
basic rights whose violation
triggered the justified war;
The relevant rights include human
rights to life and liberty &
community entitlements to territory
and sovereignty.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Discrimination
Distinction needs to be made
between the leaders, the soldiers,
and the civilians in the defeated
country one is negotiating with;
Civilians are entitled to reasonable
immunity;
This rules out socio-economic
sanctions as part of post-war
punishment.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Punishment #1
When the defeated country has
been the aggressor, proportionate
punishment must be handed out;
The leaders of the regime, in
particular, should face fair and
public international trials for war
crimes.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Punishment #2
Soldiers, from all sides of the
conflict, likewise be held
accountable to investigation and
possible trial.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Compensation
Financial
restitution
may
be
mandated,
subject
to
both
proportionality and discrimination;
A post-war poll tax on civilians is
generally not allowed;
There needs to be enough resources
left for the defeated country to
begin reconstruction.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
Rehabilitation
Reform decrepit institutions in an
aggressor regime;
May involve: demilitarization and
disarmament; police and judicial retraining; human rights education; &
even deep structural transformation
towards a minimally just society
governed by a legitimate regime;
This is the most controversial aspect
of jus post bellum.
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014
References:
Vaughn, Lewis.
Doing Ethics:
Moral
Reasoning and Contemporary Issues [Link]
3/c h/16/[Link]
Holocaust
Encyclopedia http://
[Link]/wlc/en/[Link]?ModuleI
d=10007043
Chernobyl
Accident
1986
http
://[Link]/info/Safety-and-Secu
rity/Safety-of-Plants/Chernobyl-Accident
/
NADRAWINA_ISNIN>2014