Coursework

Coursework

Imagine a state that is plagued with two particular evils: an oppressive government that is not shy about using repressive tactics against perceived enemies, and a rebel group that is equally not shy about using terror tactics to disrupt and disturb the operations of the government. Please put down an ethical argument as to WHICH group you feel is more morally wrong, accepting the fact that BOTH groups use tactics which involve the endangerment and death of innocent civilians. Which is the greater evil and why: state-sponsored terror or non-state terror?

In Graham's words “the national state thus became an expression of an ethical idea - the right of each nation to rule over itself” (Graham, 2005). He underlines the ethical values of self-governance that any nation would ideally uphold. The crux of Graham's idea lies at the fact that the government symbolizes a nation's ethical, socio-political, and economic design - creating a haven for its citizens. However, history shows that totalitarian governments such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and even Franco ruled with an iron fist, an oppressive government so cruel and vicious in nature that even the prospect of rebellion met threats of concentrations camps and outright massacres.

In the face of such political turmoil, the ethical consequences belong to the oppressor alone. However, if there is more than one party, such as rebels, that is disrupting civilian lives through acts of violence, where does the burden of ethical consequence fall then? Considering the Vietnam War in perspective, the oppressive government of Ngo Dinh Diem backed by the United States was in continuous conflict with the Vietcong - engaging in incessant guerilla warfare. Consequently, both parties shared the ethical consequences of the terror they spread.

Graham defines the right to self government as extending beyond the “bare right of a state to exist, and has come to include rights that protect and promote it, namely rights relating to self-defensive military action, humanitarian intervention, distributive justice and the environment” (Graham, 2005). He also distinguished between self-government and good-government. This leads one to question if Diem's government was a good government in its most basic sense of ethics and justice to the civilians it represented. The answer to this question will be no. Diem's government was by no means good for the Vietnamese population which comprised a largely Buddhist population. Madame Nhu, the defacto First Lady of South Vietnam, referred to the self-immolation of Buddhist honorary Thich Quang Duc with a sadistic excitement by calling to the tragic incident as a “monk barbecue show”. She further added, “All Buddhists have done for this country is to barbecue a monk” (Levy, 2004).

In Kantian ethics, moral absolutism defines two kinds of individuals - those that are absolutely right and those that are absolutely wrong. He leaves no middle ground between these two extremes. Thus, from a Kantian ethical perspective we can place the burden of ethical consequence on one party only that we can determine as absolutely ...