ch 4 - strategies of ethical decision-making

ethical traditions

rules and principles; authoritative

ethical strategies

goals, means, ends; guide decision-making

3 ethical strategies

1) ends-based

- rule utilitarianism, act utilitarianism

2) rule-based (goals, means)

3) tridimensional (goals, means, end)

ends-based action defined by philosophers as

consequentialism, teleological ethics

ends-based action definition

morality of an action judged based on the good results

- most important moral criteria is overall outcome

- ex) grenada

utilitarianism

individual/collective actions should be judged mainly by their "utility" or results

utility

the greatest good for the greatest number

2 types of utilitarianism

1) rule utilitarianism

2) act utilitarianism

rule utilitarianism

- applies utility on rules/procedures

- ethical legitimacy is derived from procedural utility (contribution to common good)

rule utilitarianism in global politics

- applies utility to norms/structures of political, economic, legal systems

- legitimacy of norms/structures depends on effect on individual/global welfare

rule utilitarianism of noninterventionism

does it contribute to global order, international peace? impact on welfare and security of individual countries?

act utilitarianism

- applies utility to particular actions

- moral legitimacy based on the extent to which overall good is maximized

- judged by anticipated results (short & long term)

- ex) US assisting other countries

why is end-based strategy widely used in domestic and international politics?

decisions are judged in terms of results, not motives

limitations of end-based strategy

1) inability to predict policy outcome

ex) economic sanctions, foreign aid

2) no clear ethical standard

case study for end-based strategy

the ethics of nuclear deterrence

just war moral theory

specifies if, when, how for war

nuclear arms "exploded" theory of just war

just war could not be applied anymore

purpose of military changed

from winning to averting war

the definition of victory

became mutual destruction

nuclear arms are a military power, but not a usable force

from compelling to deterring

new condition created by the US and USSR

mutually vulnerable + MAD (mutually assured destruction)

new strategy created by US and USSR

nuclear deterrence - prevention by threat

- no rational state would risk major aggression

nuclear deterrence rests on 2 conditions of states

1) vulnerability (no effective strategic defense)

2) retaliation

regular war can be morally justified when

the good outcomes outweigh the evil means

nuclear war is always unjustified

Mandelbaum - there is no good outcome

is nuclear deterrence morally legitimate?

- evil means

- threat vs action?

means/threat - evil?

1) aim of deterrence is prevention, not destruction

2) extent of evil in threats is difficult to ascertain

3) intentions are different from actions (morally)

4) robust firebreak between conventional and nuclear arms

good results of nuclear deterrence

1) inhibits aggression - the more horrible the prospect of war, the less likely war is.

2) promotes international stability & peace (cold war)

3) provides security at a low cost - nuclear shield in europe / flexible response

from an ends-based perspective, nuclear deterrence is morally legitimate.

- good outcomes > evil of means

- Walzer: we threaten evil in order not to do it

- contributes to a peace of sort

- ONLY if deterrence succeeds in keeping peace

was strategic peace ascertained?

Gaddis - cold war long peace, nuclear weapons

rule-based action, known as

deontological thinking

rule-based analysis

actions should be judged by their inherent rightness and validity, not by outcome.

- goals and intentions, means

- duty and right intentions - agent centered

under rule-based analysis, would kosovo and grenada be morally justified?

no

how would policymakers know their ethical duties?

rightness of rule or action based on categorical imperative - kant

categorical imperative - kant

1) persons have value; are ends, not means

2) act according to priniciples that can be universalized

- apply to all

- moral obligations should be fulfilled not because of better ends but because they are required by moral action

critics of rule-based analysis / deontological ethics

- overtly rigid, principles need to be adapted to culture and context

- it assumes humans have the capacity to identify inherent moral value

- it assumes humans WILL behave according to moral norms

rule-based strategy is

rare in politics, but taken in fulfillment of perceived moral duties

ex) north korea food aid, africa economic assistance

case study for rule-based strategy

famine relief for soviet russia

US-USSR had poor relations

adopted isolation policy in hope Soviets would be overthrown

soviet appealed for famine relief in 1921

moral dilemma

US decision for response

humanitarian relief = legitimate moral obligation of american people

tridimensional model

assess action in terms of all 3 dimensions

how should policy makers decide?

1) rely on one ethical strategy - either ends-based or rule-based

2) rely on the practice of prudence

practice of prudence

- weigh alternatives/choose one - advances common good

- trade-offs between means and results

features of prudence

1) morality over circumstances, ought over is

2) human virtue, not religion/ideology/worldview as the major determinants

tridimensional ethical decision making norms

1) clear, logical, consistent standards

2) impartiality

3) priority of rules

4) procedures protect impartiality

5) prudence in calculating results

tridimensional ethics case study

the ethics of strategic defense

strategic defense initiative (SDI)

- 1980 reagan

- defensive system against nuclear missles

- moving from offense to defense

was SDI morally desirable?

- aims/goals: wholly ethical

- means: morally ambiguous, offensive and defensive system

- consequences:

1) war avoidance: MAD > SDI

2) minimization of destruction of war: SDI > MAD

3) costs: MAD > SDI (morally)

ethical decision making

yeah

making political decisions

1) knowledge

2) identify approaches

3) select approach

4) policy implementation

integrating political morality

1) identify moral values

2) prioritize more norms

- syria: HR vs nonintervention

3) select

4) overall moral effect of govt decision

moral courage

the courage to carry out morally inspired actions in spite of potential dangers

- obama, nelson mandela, todd beamer

why are some more willing to confront wrongdoing/sources of moral courage?

rule-based ethics - moral duties

utilitarian ends-based ethics - good consequences

virtue ethics - result of personal character