Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Philosopher or School of Philosophy
The contemporary world faces several moral challenges. It faces political, social, environmental, and economic issues that affect global populations. For instance, the world is faced with a situation where the preservation of species and their natural habitat are vital for an ecosystem. However, humans are faced with a pressure to destroy these habitats to satisfy their need for logging and hunting. These pressures make conservation efforts for a moral struggle. Additionally, it is globally known that tobacco and alcohol cause health problems. The two contribute to global hunger because they lead to the diversion of prime land away from food production. They also exacerbate poverty and degrade the environment. Despite the attempt to reduce the global consumption of alcohol and cigarettes, the producing companies engage in marketing activities with an aim of increasing consumption. This situation leads to moral conflicts. The utilitarianism school of philosophy is the most relevant to the moral issues that face the contemporary world.
One of the most defining ethical issues that the contemporary world faces is the issue of terrorism. The September 11th attack on the U.S can be seen as an extraordinary act of terrorism. Response to the September 11th attack leads to the conviction that the current global law regimes are an outmoded relic. The response to the attack ignored the traditions of a just war. The traditions of a just war require wars to be based on moral grounds. Utilitarianism provides opportunities for understanding the just war traditions.
The September 11th terrorist attack is considered by many Americans as a singular event that changed their lives. As a result of the terrorist attack, the United States and its allies, France and Britain among others, attacked what was believed to be the hiding location of the terrorists. The attack on Iran and Afghanistan placed immense moral strain on the regimes of international treaties and laws. It is vital to note that the terrorist threats facing the U.S and other countries do not emanate from a sovereign state, but from a group within the state. This means that a sovereign state may not support terrorism, but some agents of terrorism may hide within its territories. Based on this knowledge, it is essential to use the basics of utilitarianism in changing the current international laws regarding war between sovereign states. The new changes based on utilitarianism would accommodate the new concepts of terrorism and sovereignty of a state.
The events of the terrorist attack force a reconsideration of the ethical basis that serves as a foundation for the principles of a just war. The just war principles are based on the human rights perspectives. Recent events, such as the terrorist attack and the attack on Iraq, demonstrate a need for a utilitarian basis for the just war traditions. The utilitarian basis is important because it can serve as a guide for foreign and military policies. The adoption of a utilitarian basis needs an honest appraisal of the benefits and costs of policy decisions. It would also require a higher degree of humility and caution than most of the current strategies on terrorism. The decision to attack Iraq is an example of wishful and optimistic thinking on the part of the policymakers.
Contemporary advocates of the just war theory consider the theory to emanate from the views of rights and people. In this case, the main aim of the theory is to restrict the use of military tools and power to protect the rights of people. Based on the utilitarian principles, any military force or action is committed to humanitarian principles. This means that the military exercise should respect people and minimize human suffering. A utilitarian interpretation of a just war argues that the human rights perspectives of the war are derived from utilitarianism because they strive to obtain maximum good for the highest number of people. In the case of a just war, a utilitarian would endorse actions that are best suited to obtain the three goals of the just war theory. The three goals are limiting the extents of the war, limiting the probability of a future war, and limiting the brutality of the war. A utilitarian would determine the actions in order to endorse based on the calculations of the probable outcomes and the relationships of the outcomes to the goals of the theory.
It is argued that utilitarianism is not an appropriate moral principle because it is faced with multitudes of shortcomings. Therefore, it is argued that utilitarianism is an inappropriate basis for morality and for the moral judgment of a war. These arguments are derived from the fact that utilitarianism is characterized by the coldly calculating nature of thinking and an emphasis on the consequences of actions. Utilitarianism tends to ignore other important aspects such as moral life and moral values. The lost values in utilitarianism include the absolutist moral principles. These criticisms of utilitarianism are important and serious ones. However, they are appropriate within the scope of personal moral codes rather than moral frameworks for public policy. When the subjects are the just war theory and decisions about war, the criticisms and weaknesses of utilitarianism turn to strengths.
The impersonal nature of utilitarianisms, though inappropriate when addressing daily moral dilemmas concerning family life, is entirely appropriate within the public policy space. It guarantees measures of impartiality. This impartiality is crucial for the just war theory because it does not overinflate the dangers of a country when making decisions about war. The coldly calculating thinking of utilitarianism is important because it ensures that public officials use their heads to rules and decide rather than their emotions. After achieving victory against a former enemy, the public might demand revenge. Though government officials may cede to the outcry or sympathize with the public, they must overcome the natural feelings shown by the public by basing their decisions on utilitarianism.
In the contemporary world, motives and intentions are superfluous. For instance, President George H.W Bush’s motive for going to war with Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War was to safeguard the fuel interests of multinational companies. In my opinion, his government did not have the intentions of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. The Gulf War was morally justified by the fact that it was a moral response to the aggressions of the Iraq government. It was morally agreed that the U.S would go to war with an aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait regardless of the intentions of the U.S President. In this case, the only thing that can be judged on moral grounds is the outcome of the policies or actions taken by the U.S official. Utilitarianism operating at this level recognizes the problems facing public policy and correctly discounts the intentions and motives of the policymaker in favor of the results or outcomes.
The recognition of the state as a moral representative flows from the functions and attributes that are inherent in the state. States tend to embody certain goals and values that are expressed in their laws, constitution, and history. The professional ethics that guide and shape the American military and other global militaries trace their primary factors from these expressions. The core values of the American society are freedom, individualism, democracy, and equality. An additional attribute that is inherent to a state is the capacity for deliberative actions. Through the executive and legislative branches, the government has the ability to formulate policies and act on the policies in order to attain the goals or ends it values. In this case, the state has a monopoly on the employment of legitimate force. In such a case, utilitarianism is an appropriate moral principle for guiding public policy decision making with regards to moral judgments concerning the military force.
The fight against terrorism will continue beyond the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The current threats of terrorism represent a new breed of terrorism. The principles of utilitarianism provide opportunities for guiding the just war theory and international laws that will be used to fight terrorism. Utilitarianism provides practical and reasonable moral basis for the criteria of a just war against terrorism. The practices and decisions sanctioned by utilitarianism serve as morally practical ends to the war on terrorism.