Ethical Questions

1. What are your thoughts concerning Thomas Aquinas’ “Just War Theory” concepts? Can there ever be such a thing as a just war?

Thomas Aquinas said that war could only be just if (1) it was waged by a properly instituted authority; (2) it must happen for a good and just purpose, instead of for self-gain, or to assert power; and (3) achieving peace must still be the central motive in war. If applying these definitions, I do not think that there can ever be such a thing as a just war. Opponents of the theory have argued that all three criteria need to have been met, and anything solely for the benefit of a county is not a good enough reason to go to war.

2) Comment on Benjamin Franklin's quote regarding liberty and security that I mentioned in the lecture. Have we in this country traded some civil liberties for some temporary feelings of security?

Benjamin Franklin said that, “anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.” As part of the U.S. government’s anti-terrorism policies, there has been a significant trade-off between civil liberties and homeland security. For example, most recently it was revealed that the National Security Agency engaged in wiretapping without first obtaining judicial warrants to do so. It was also reported that the NYPD engaged in a large intelligence-collecting effort, specifically targeting the city's Muslim community. Whether these actions are right or wrong, it is indisputable that certain civil liberties were traded in the name of national security.

3) Have methods to stop possible terrorism gone too far, in terms of screenings at airports, telephone surveillance and wiretapping, spying on citizens, etc.?

The question of whether anti-terrorism measures have gone too far remains the subject of considerable debate. Airports in the U.S. began using full body scanners, only to discontinue them soon after because they were too invasive. The National Security Agency has recently come under fire because of unauthorized telephone surveillance and wiretapping, even though the agency claims that it led to the prevention of new terrorist activities. The government also monitored the cell phone conversations of foreign leaders, but has since stopped that practice. Although these efforts were in large part successful and reportedly thwarted terrorism activity, the reversal of each of these practices seems to lend credibility to the argument that perhaps the U.S. went too far in the first place.

4) How would you define acts of terrorism? Has the United States ever engaged in such acts, in your opinion? Are you aware that the United States assists in rebuilding countries that we have helped to destroy during wars? After WWII the Marshall Plan (below) was initiated. We were instrumental in helping to rebuild countries in Europe (including Germany) and also we helped to rebuild Japan. Look at the cost to U.S. taxpayers, (included in the lecture materials). Remember that this was 1947, when the average wage was $ 2,850, the cost of a new home was $ 6,600 and a loaf of bread cost 13 cents. Let's see, we assist in destroying a country, only to rebuild it bigger and better? Logical?

Terrorism, by definition, is the unlawful use (or threatened use) of force or violence by a person (or organized group) against people or property, with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. When applied solely in the context of this definition, it is possible to look at acts committed by the United States as acts of terrorism. For example, in March of this year, the U.S. sent F-22 stealth fighter jets to South Korea to participate in military drills. This deployment was meant as a show of force and a threat (although veiled) of violence against North Korea following increasing tensions with South Korea. The definition of terrorism could be applied to this scenario and the United States could be considered to have engaged in terrorism.

5) Comment on the notion that when we blow a country into submission we use tax payer’s money to rebuild the country.

The government of a county is likely decimated during a war. The United States has learned that it is important to help rebuild the government of those countries in order to create a new, peaceful and stable society to replace what was destroyed. Much like the war effort would have been funded by tax payer dollars, any efforts to rebuild the country would also have to be done using the taxpayer’s money. The rebuilding effort could arguably be seen as a continuation of the war itself. Not only did the U.S. need to remove a particular government from power, it needed to insure that it was replaced with a stable and acceptable replacement.