In Libya, What's Right?
Rushworth M. Kidder asks if the US involvement in Libya is an economically advantageous thing, politically astute thing or the military effective thing. He states that as citizens of UN member countries, we have a great interest in the conflict, but we have little to contribute to the debate. With the lack of the required experience to analyze the situation, most of us are just spectators, not participates. By ethical standpoint citizens should be participants, by asking "What's right?" and what causes us to say "This is the right thing to do." Kidder that asks the reader to consider and analyze three things: outcomes, principles and relationships. Looking at the outcome from ethics standpoint, there is no good outcome. Regardless the conflict will result in a blood shed with many civilian lives lost. Principle. Universal principle dictate to: "Always promote civil society", "Always stand against genocide" or "Always protect the weak from murderous dictators." A principle parallel to those ones may say: "Always support democratic freedom-fighters." From those principles, what is right is never shaped by mere consequence. Relationships The questions to ask are: "What do rebels want?", or "What if we stood by and did nothing?”
By looking at the conflict from Outcome, Principle and Relationship perspective, Rushworth M. Kidder wants readers to: "determine the highest right and stand ready to argue for it."
- re: CTC-301_Article_1
by Kyle Brame (bramek) at Sunday, December 5, 2010 12:01am
And how do you feel about this, Max? Do you think it is economical, political, or militaristic?
facebook | del.icio.us | digg | stumbleupon | RSS | slashdot | twitter