Perhaps there is no simple answer, then again, perhaps we make it un-simple.
I believe that ethics are relative. So waterboarding as an example is OK is it not? If the highest justice authority in the land says it's ok, then it is, isn't it? What other authority is there? Just because a later authority with the ability to prosecute people says it wasn't does that mean that the later position is the correct one? Some may say our "conscience" is our final authority, but... Perhaps we confuse an emotional reaction of discomfort at the discomfort of others for "ethics". We have such an emotional reaction probably born from fear (that such things may happen to us) and from personal discomfort which arises from observing others in distress (and of course we want primarily OUR discomfort to stop). It may be a complicated issue, but perhaps it actually isn't. Perhaps it's complicated nature is a result of our unwillingness to say, that when it comes down to it, ethics is relative to whoever is currently in authority. --Mike On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Mike Palij <m...@nyu.edu> wrote: > Here's a question that one might consider when covering ethics > and topics such as Milgram's obedience to authority and related > issues: > > When is it okay to violate ethical principles and even federal and > international laws? > > I don't propose that there is a simple answer to this question but > the question has taken on relevance because of the release of the > "torture memos" from the Bush administration. If you have not > head about them, the NY Times has an article on them: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?_r=1&th&emc=th > The ACLU went to court to obtain the memos under a Freedom > of Information Act (FOIA) request and they have a press release > on the decision to release the torture memos: > http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39393prs20090416.html?s_src=RSS > Copies of the memos are also available on the ACLU website: > http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html > > It might be useful to read Hannah Arendt's "Eichman in Jerusalem" > to appreciate the issue of the "banality of evil" in the memos, that is, > the matter of fact descriptions of which procedures can be used > during the course of interrogations, such as waterboarding, and how > it should be done so that they wouldn't constitute torture, as the lawyers > understood it. > > The parallel to Milgram is obvious: > > The CIA operatives conducting the "interrogations" requested a legal > opinion from the Bush Department of Justice on the legality of the > techniques because use of some of these techniques in past were > construed as war crimes (e.g., waterboarding). If CIA operatives > engaged in these activities under orders, would they be held legally > responsible for engaging in war crimes later as had those who had > enaged in them in the past? > > Put another way: if Milgram's subjects had actually shocked the > "learner" and caused actual pain, suffering, or even death, would > the subects be ethically and legally free of any responsibility because > the experimenter said it was "okay" and that the experimenter would > take responsibility for whatever happened? That is, the subjects > were only "following orders"? > > The issue arises because President Obama appears to hold the > following position (quoting the NY Times article): > > |Mr. Obama said that C.I.A. officers who were acting on the > |Justice Department's legal advice would not be prosecuted, > |but he left open the possibility that anyone who acted without > |legal authorization could still face criminal penalties. He did not > |address whether lawyers who authorized the use of the interrogation > |techniques should face some kind of penalty. > > So, in the context of the Milgram experiment, the CIA officers are > like the subjects giving the shocks, the Justice Department is like > the experimenter providing permission to engage in the behaviors. > > If the Milgram experiment had been for real, who would have been > guilty of unethical and illegal behavior? The perpetrator (i.e., the > subject)? > The authority giving permission (i.e., the experimenter)? Both? > Or neither because of other, contextual issues? > > Are ethical and legal principles malleable and relative, according to > circumstances? This appears to be the view of some in the > administration. Quoting from the NY Times article: > > |The A.C.L.U. said the memos clearly describe criminal conduct and > |underscore the need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate who > |authorized and carried out torture. > | > |But Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, cautioned that > |the memos were written at a time when C.I.A. officers were frantically > |working to prevent a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. > | > |"Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear > |graphic and disturbing," said Mr. Blair in a written statement. "But we > |will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos." > > Again, I ask: > > When is it okay to violate ethical principles and even federal and > international laws? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > m...@nyu.edu > > P.S. As a seperate exercise, we could also ask students to review > the research literature on the effectiveness of torture to elicit any > useful > information. If it turns out that torture produces unreliable information, > what possible justification could it have? > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
