Recently, there has been controversy regarding the harsh CIA interrogations. Back when President Barack Obama first took office, he had promised to put an end to President Bush’s inhumane national security policies. However, much of Bush’s security apparatus remains in place, such as the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the government surveillance programs.
I want to point out that this is not an easy issue to address. We have to realize and acknowledge that this is a case for a real ethical dilemma — a case where taking any action is subject to moral blame.
Suppose you had promised to give a moving speech at your best friend’s funeral at 3 p.m. on a certain day. On the same day, you get a phone call at 2:45 p.m. from the hospital.
It turns out that your mother has gotten into a horrible car accident. You know that if you go to the hospital to see your mother, you will definitely miss the entire funeral and fail to give the speech. On one hand, you know it’s not right to break a promise. On the other hand, you – being the loyal only child to a widow — have the responsibility to ensure your mother’s well-being.
This scenario leaves you at a loss about what to do.
However, you can dispute this by saying that certain moral requirements override other ones. In this case, you can say that the right action would obviously be to go tend your mother, who seems to be more in need of immediate attention.
For these reasons, the existence of moral dilemmas remains a debate among scholars. Some believe that there are no genuine moral dilemmas, because in every situation there should be an action most fitting in the immediate context. Others believe that moral obligations are universal and indefinite, such that their requirements should never be overridden.
Obama’s national security policy is a perfect example of a genuine moral dilemma. As president, he has an obligation to use effective means to protect citizens from harm, while on the other hand, as a democratic leader, he has an obligation to keep his promise of changing Bush’s national security apparatus.
I do not believe that people are willing to see changes take place at the risk of their safety, nor do I think such risks should be taken lightly.
Safety is something that many take for granted. Though the government has not been able to protect us from all the harms of the world, ultimately, we must acknowledge that we are safer with its protection than without.
However, I do not believe that this argument for safety can justify torture.Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that this is a complex issue. At this point, we must acknowledge that whatever steps taken by the president will be subject to criticism. I think it’s more important to realize the complexity of the issue before forming an opinion about the right thing to do.
In certain contexts, we really have to reconsider whether it’s possible for there to be any action to suffice as most righteous.
nywu@indiana.edu
