There are two main forms of strategies for ethical decision making in foreign policy. The first is end-based (consequentialism) and the second is rules-based (deontology). Consequentialism stresses the importance of the overall outcome of the interaction. According to this line of thinking the conclusion that is the most moral/ethical choice available should be pursued, even if the means of reaching that conclusion are less than ideal. Conversely, deontology stresses the importance of adhering to a strict moral code. This means that the best outcome is flawed if in the process certain ethical and moral rules were not followed.
In an interview with Bob Abernerthy on PBS, reverend John Langan, a professor at Georgetown University spoke regarding ethics in Afghanistan. Father John Langan said that “the whole task of trying to stop this kind of terrorism — of restoring a sense of order and confidence in our society and the world at large — that’s morally quite important.” The following question by Abernethy raised the question of consequentialism versus deontology, “And it is important that the good likely to be done outweighs the harm that is being done, and how do you rate us on that?” Father John Langan responded by saying that he thought the good did outweigh the harm of war. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week509/perspectives.html)
This is a classic instance of comparing ends-based and rules-based philosophies. Reverand John Langan took a ends-based approach to the problem of ending terrorism and persecution in Afghanistan. The means of eliminating those threats, war, were acceptable so long as the final moral goal was achieved. Deontologists would argue that subjecting an entire nation to the strife of war in which civilian casualties from weapons and famine would result would nullify the positive result of eliminating a terrorist threat. Deontologists would likely stress a more peaceful process, such as promoting international pressure on the Afghan government through the United Nations.
And finally, Calvin voices his support for consequentialism…
http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/calvin_ethics.jpg
First, the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon is great. It really applies to the morality and issue and may describe a certain country that we live in. How can the US judge others when we have committed such atrocities in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib? This really disturbs me, and a prime example is the Saudi Arabian case of the woman who was raped. Before 9/11 could the US have saved her? That is an impossible questions to answer but very necessary to contemplate. Are our means justified? In these cases it certainly seems no.
In light of Afghanistan this article from BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7222194.stm describes that the Taliban have älmost just as much control as they used to due to the current corrupt and weak government. The article says “the battle for Afghanistan is harder now than it was after the Taleban were first forced out of power in Kabul.” Have we done more good than bad? Will there be a stable government in the end? The US needs to properly balance deontology and consequentialism before invasion.
I agree with georgegeorge about the contradictory nature of the United States, however I agree with the ends based motivation of the United States’s actions in Afghanistan. The United States is working to combat the immoral actions of the terrorist regimes in the region that they commit against their own civilians. Although they may have to take drastic means to do so, the United States is working for the betterment of the region and to bring about stability. The United States is working to protect those that cannot protect themselves. However, in order to do so, the United States must stay actively involved in Afghanistan until improvements are finalized. It would be immoral to abandon the country.