PHI 208 Week 3 Assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Full assignment with references...

Description

Government Overthrow

1

Overthrowing a Government PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning Prof, Bradley Thames September 30, 2019

Government Overthrow

2 Overthrowing a Government

Part 1: Introduction Is it acceptable for a powerful nation to support the overthrow of the government of a less powerful nation if doing so would support its own long term economic and strategic interests? The United States in itself has been included or started many involvements of regime changes throughout history and the globe. One of the most memorable in recent history is World War II with the United States aiding in the overthrow of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. During those years, we overthrew their rulers such as Adolf Hitler, along with their governmental policies and foundation. After World War II ended the United Nations convened and ratified the UN Charter, Article 2 (4), which says “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” (Chapter 1) This ratification makes it nearly impossible to legally engage in other countries regime changes without the support and consent of the United Nations. This does not mean that it does not happen, or that it hasn’t happened many times over throughout the years. The United States plays a big part in this. Such as the war on terrorism where we supported and aided in the overthrow of the governments in Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq, Palestinian territories, and Syria. Overthrows of governments have been happening for centuries and will continue for hundreds more; it is not a new tactic. But does it face moral ramifications? Or only within whatever the context is? The purpose of this paper is to answer just that by looking through the utilitarian perspective to prove that the overthrow of lesser governments is ethical.

Part 2: Ethical Argument

Government Overthrow

3

The core moral principles of Utilitarianism are the nature and character of a person, the action itself, and the consequences of the action. This can be described as who the person is and why they are doing it, what they are doing, and how it affects themselves and those around them — but always weighing in the level of happiness and the level of pain. “‘Greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” (Thames, 2018) Such as our discussion in week two of pulling the lever to kill one and save five or do nothing and kill the five. The greatest happiness is obviously of the five; five outweighs the pleasure of the one. And it causes a minimal amount of pain, the pain of the five deaths is higher than the end of the one, so a utilitarian would choose to kill the one. And have the most happiness and the least amount of pain.

Part 4: Application of the Ethical Theory To begin the application of Utilitarianism to government overthrow, we must look into account each moral principle to accurately establish whether it is ethical or not. The first principle is the basis of the person, and why they are doing it, to begin, I will apply it to the United States, global superpower and one of the largest leading nations that participates in regime changes internationally. The United States intervention is deemed moral and right as this land is thought of the land of freedom and dreams, regime changes we have played in happen to be for the better of the people of that country but also to better ourselves, with trade, alliances,

Government Overthrow

4

extra bodies, bargains, whatever stands to be our gain. This moral because we are achieving the greatest happiness for ourselves and the other country. Next is the act itself, and whether it is moral for a country to participate in the regime change of another for their advantageous reasons. During World War II Nazi Germany was taking over Europe wreaking havoc and terrorizing the land and its people. The United States assisted in the regime change of the nationalist socialist party and Adolf Hitler, and this happens to be one of the most significant examples in history. And this also makes it one of the most moral, most of us know of the horrors that occurred from every side of this war, which is why the destruction and participation in its overthrow were also necessary. The United States joined the war late and also because its soil was attacked, but the opposition of its government also stood to create one of the strongest alliances between U.S. and Germany, having joint bases, trade, and economic benefits to either side, which also provides a close ally to the middle east for observation and interference should it be necessary. Which also aided in some of the most recent regime changes I mentioned earlier in this paper. Next is the consequences brought on by these government overthrows. In both circumstances, exampled above had the United States not participated would have led to more death and war crimes. Along with destructions of whole countries and people. Resulting in an overwhelming amount of pain which goes against Utilitarianism. Because the core principles of Utilitarianism are the nature and character of a person, the action itself, and the consequences of the action, someone using this ethical theory to consider government overthrows, would conclude that it is moral for larger governments to overthrow lesser countries for economic and strategic interests.

Government Overthrow

5

Part 3: Explanation and Defense The basis of Utilitarianism is to find the option that results in the most happiness with the least amount of pain. “In its most general sense, utilitarianism is the theory that morally right actions, laws, or policies are those whose consequences have the greatest positive value and least negative value compared to available alternatives”. (Thames, 2018) Jeremy Bentham is the founding father of Utilitarianism, but John Stuart Mill has greatly influenced how we view it today. Mill was a 19th-century English philosopher he adapted and refined Bentham’s initial theory, to weed out the problem’s skeptics had with it. The moral principles of utilitarianism are subject to the rates in which happiness and pain are involved in the decision. The higher the happiness level the more ethical it is deemed, and likewise the more pain involved the less ethical. While the happiness and pain of oneself is important it is not the only factor, also the rates of those it affects, utilitarianism is not just majority rules either. It depends on which side has to gain the most happiness, or which side receives the most pain. In the case of a larger country overthrowing a lesser one, it is not just about the reasons why but also the how and the consequences that defines its morality. Such as a large country like Russia taking over Ukraine a much smaller nation, for the resource access the Ukraine has to gas. Is this ethical? Well it depends on the way in which it is conducted showing military force going in and fighting for it would not seem so. It causes more pain than happiness. Staging a coup that essentially only affects the leaders of the Ukraine posses a more moral approach. In the sense of needed long term economic success, the overthrow of a lesser government is ethical, when it done so by means that involve the least amount of pain. It causes the most happiness for the greater country and the least amount of pain for the lesser. Part 5:

Government Overthrow

6

References Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education. Chapter I. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapteri/index.html...