0653 - EthicalAction

Once more, events require an alternate subject for this week's sermon. We turn the podium over to our Staff Ethicist, who, as usual these days, is sad. He is depressed by the worldwide decline in the ethical standing of the United States. Begin with the inexcusable example of Guantanamo. There are prisoners held, and destined to be held, forever, without charges, trial and conviction. An example is a hapless lout who seems to have been bin Laden's driver. Gosh! What a criminal! What a threat to the civilized world! The Bush Administration says it can't just set these dangerous terrorists free. Well, sure, but who says this particular fellow is a terrorist? If you know he is, try him, convict him, and shoot him at dawn. But if you can't do that because you don't know what he did, then you are making a grave logical and ethical error – that of assuming guilt before trial. So, before the bar of world opinion, the U.S. is guilty of unethical behavior.

Those who have paid attention to the sad trail of mistakes in invading, occupying, and trashing Iraq know why the world polls show the U.S. trailing Vlad the Impaler in popularity. Of course, Saddam's a monster who terrorized and oppressed his citizens. A panel of ethical judges might very well have issued a bench warrant to assassinate him. His death, for known crimes, would have spared many deaths. Hence, offing him was correct, but we didn't try that (or perhaps were incapable). Instead, on evidence known before the actual invasion to be false, we invaded. A very few U.S. soldiers died in the actual invasion, but many Iraqi civilians died in the bombardments. Now, many, many more innocents die daily in the sectarian civil war. And apparently, some have died directly at the hands of U.S. troops out of control. Clearly, the number of civilian deaths is ten times or more the constantly growing number of American casualties. Are we guilty of stupidity, callousness, and gross incompetence amounting to total ethical ineptitude? Clearly yes.

As we now look around the world, the heads of Iran and North Korea threaten us with nuclear war. Both need ethical instruction, as well as a shave and a hair-do, respectively. Grant that the leaders are morally repulsive and their people unhappy. Does that justify an ethical invasion? Well, ask if the misery in Darfur justifies an invasion, which would be a lot easier and less dangerous. If the rule is that bad rulers justify invasion, there are scores of miserable countries needing immediate attention. Is it not plain that invasion is not an alternative unless the invader is morally certain to be able to improve safety, health and prosperity? That, the U.S. has signally failed to do in Iraq.

And then we have the delicate subject of religion. Americans are very touchy about religions and religionists. Even if a mad Mullah is preaching death, we respect his assumption of the mantle of a preacher, and wouldn't think of arrest or killing. This is both ethically and practically foolish. The Mullahs preach death to the West, we reply we respect your religion. Why? A murderer is a murderer. One who teaches generations their duty to kill the innocent is not a religious teacher, but a criminal – shoot on sight. Here, some extra-sharp thinking is also needed about claims of discrimination in searching Muslims at airports. Look at the facts: the major bombings in New York, London, Madrid, and indeed around the world are the work of religious Muslim nut cases. It is therefore sensible, not discriminatory, to search and process the groups from which such slaughter comes, while not being stupid and choosing grandmas in tennis shoes for equal opportunity inspection. Ethical action is not stupid action: you have to look where the criminals are. Be good, but be smart!

Next time: Changes [OO #654]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home