A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Saudi Arabia

Feeding the Beast

by Leave a Comment

English: The Pure Speculation Festival Logo
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As a runner who had friends at the Boston Marathon, I followed the news relating to the event with great interest and concern. Like many others, I was struck by the moral and critical defects in some of the coverage.

Not surprisingly, the New York Post led the way in terms of defective coverage. The Post started off by getting the death toll wrong and then proceeded to link a Saudi national to the bombing. The Post then topped it off by putting two innocent people on the cover with a heading (“bag men”) that clearly implied they were involved.

While other folks in the media did not reach the depths explored by the Post, the coverage of the event was widely marked with factual inaccuracies and unfounded speculation.  While it is reasonable to forgive the folks in the media for not having all the facts when a story is evolving, it is also reasonable for the folks to use proper diligence and critical methods to assess the alleged facts before committing to them. It is also reasonable to expect the alleged professionals to be clear when they are just speculating and to restrain such speculation to its proper scope.

I do understand why the media folks often engage in speculation and hasty judgments. News is a for-profit business and they need to keep people watching the news so that they are watching the advertising between the stories. If a media person honestly reports that they do not have the facts and refuses to engage in unfounded speculation, then people will tend to turn to other media sources in the hopes of getting the facts. If these sources do not have the facts, they obviously need to choose between the ethical course of being clear about the lack of facts or engage in  unfounded speculation and unwarranted judgments. Obviously, the speculation and judgments have a better chance of keeping the audience’s attention. After all, if one source reports that the suspects are not known and another claims that a Saudi national is a suspect, people will turn to the sources making the claim about the suspect-even if the claim is completely unfounded.

While this approach does make some sense from a business perspective, it can obviously be rather harmful. In the case of the two innocent people who appeared on the Post’s cover, they have to worry about being harassed or harmed by people who bought what the Post was selling. There is also the concern that such misleading reporting can impeded investigations by leading the public to think that the suspects have been found and hence there is no need to keep looking. There is also the ethical concern regarding making claims when a person knows that they are not properly grounded in evidence.

In addition to the defects, I was also struck by the volume of empty chatter, such as the repeated statements of the very obvious and the vague filler comments. I do get why they talking heads have to do this-they need to stay on the big story to keep people watching, but when they have no actual facts to report and run out of unfounded speculation, they still have time to fill. To fill this time, they typically take the easiest route-empty chatter. Sometimes, as I saw on CNN, they even run out of empty chatter-the image of  John King standing with two people desperately checking their phones for something to say nicely exemplifies this situation.

While the media folks could do the obvious and switch to another story that involves actual facts, that creates the risk of losing the audience. Presumably CNN believed that showing people standing around would keep the audience better than going to another story. There is probably also the concern of backlash-that going to another story might create the impression that the media folks do not care enough about the big story to remain focused on it even when they have not a damn meaningful  thing to say.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Principles & Pragmatism

by Leave a Comment

Immanuel Kant developed his own version of the...
Image via Wikipedia

While the United States and NATO has been busily bombing parts of Libya, Obama only recently presented a speech discussing the justification for that action. He also addressed the question of why the United States was intervening in Libya while allowing seemingly similar uprisings to go unsupported. While this oversimplifies the matter, his basic reply was that the United States is acting in accord with its principles, but is primarily acting in accord with its pragmatic interests. In the case of Libya, our professed values happen to coincide with our professed interests. In the case of other places, such as Syria, our professed values are at odds with out professed interests. Hence, we are bombing Libya and not bombing Syria (and doing nothing but support Saudi Arabia).

Some pundits have taken to calling this approach the “Obama Doctrine”, which is a rather silly thing to do. After all, a look at American presidents shows that this sort of approach is actually the “what all American presidents have done and will do doctrine.” Obama’s major change is that he reduced the rhetoric and was honest about the pragmatic aspects of the matter. That, I think, is to his credit.

While this situation raises many moral topics, I will focus on the specific matter of pragmatism and principle. This has, of course, been discussed by thinkers far greater than I, such as Kant. To steal a bit from that fine fellow, there seems to be a clear distinction between acting from moral principles (crudely put, doing what is right because it is right) and acting from pragmatism (doing what seems most likely to serve one’s perceived non-moral interests). In some cases these can, of course, be in harmony. After all, there is no reason why what is right might not also serve to advance one’s practical interests.

However, it is not these situations that provide the test of one’s principles. Rather, the morally challenging situations are those in which one’s principles and perceived practical interests are not in harmony. In one such scenario, one’s principles might provide a moral reason to act while such action might be against one’s practical interests. For example, supporting an uprising in Syria would seem to match America’s professed principles while doing so would seem to be against our perceived interests.  In another scenario, one practical interests might demand action that goes against one’s principles. For example, supporting dictators in the Middle East was long seen as being in our perceived interest while clearly being against our professed values.

On the face of it, to act only when our professed principles and perceived practical interests coincide would seem to show that our principles effectively amount to little or nothing. Truly having principles would seem to require that we act on them even when it is not in our perceived practical interest to do so. This also seems to require that we refrain from some actions, even when taking those actions would seem to be in our perceived interests.  Otherwise what do our principles amount to other than empty words? In any case, we can hardly make a claim to moral goodness or principles if we merely act on the basis of perceived practical self interests and dress it up with high sounding phrases about freedom and rights.

This is not to say that we must be moral saints and always act on principle even when doing so is terribly harmful and contrary to our perceived interests. After all, being principled means doing what is correct and not what is self-destructive or beyond what can reasonable be expected. We may, of course, properly have interests. However, to make a claim to principles these principles must play a greater role than merely dressing up actions we would do anyway on practical grounds.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Oil

by 12 Comments

El Saharara oil field, in Libya, operated by R...
Image via Wikipedia

As revolution and rebellion sweep the Middle East, Americans watch as their gas prices creep upwards. Oil is, of course, the defining factor of the Middle East and the foundation of our interest in the region. Oil and the money it generates have helped create and sustain autocratic leaders and dictatorships. It yields the funds needed to maintain oppressive states. It also provides the  influence needed to ensure that other nations will be willing to support almost any regime that can keep the oil flowing.

Speaking of oil, given that the region is so volatile, one might wonder why we are still so reliant on oil and why major companies are quite willing to stick with it as their prime source of profit. One obvious reason is inertia and investment-the economy grew on oil and is designed to run on oil. Switching over is seen as costly and difficult and hence there is little inclination to do so.

Another possible factor is that the volatility provides a built in price enhancer. After all, almost as soon as news of trouble in the Middle East makes the news, oil prices begin to rise. For example, the unrest in Libya is currently used to justify a significant increase in the price of oil. These surges in prices provide excellent sources of profit boosts and they happen often enough that they can be counted on.

Of course, the unrest does present some risks. Facilities can be damaged, people can come into power that are not friendly to the oil companies, supplies can be cut in a way that actually interferes with profits and so on. However, it does seem that a crisis in the Middle East is generally money in the bank for certain companies.

For the rest of us, the fluctuation of oil prices would seem to give us yet another reason to get away from an oil based economy. Of course, such attempts are slammed as being unrealistic, leftist, unnecessary or otherwise defective and hence little or anything is every done.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Ethics of Wikileaking

by 17 Comments

Logo used by Wikileaks
Image via Wikipedia

Wikileaks has made the news once again for leaking confidential documents. This latest batch consists of  251,287 cables from Unites States embassies. While most of the documents are not classified, some are and this is a matter of concern to American officials.

While there are various legal concerns regarding these documents, my main concern is with the ethics of this leaking. I will consider various arguments in the course of the discussion.

One argument in favor of the leak is the classic Gadfly Argument (named in honor of Socrates because of his claim to the role of the gadfly to the city of Athens). The gist of the argument is that the people in government need to be watched and criticized so as to decrease the likelihood that they will conduct and conceal misdeeds in shadows and silence.

Given that governments have an extensive track record of misdeeds, it certainly makes sense to be concerned about what the folks running the show might really be doing under the cloak of secrecy and national security. If it is assumed that being part of the government does not exempt these people from moral accountability, then it would seem to follow that leaking their misdeeds is, in general, a morally acceptable action. After all, it would seem to be rather absurd to argue that people have a moral right to keep their misdeeds a secret.

The obvious reply to the Gadfly Argument is that even if it is granted, it does not cover all of the leaked material. After all, not all of the material deals with moral questionable activities that should be thus exposed to the light of day. As such, more would be needed to justify such a leak.

A second obvious argument is based on the assumption that in a democracy the citizens have a moral right to know what the folks in the government are doing in their name. This right can be based on the idea that the citizens are collectively responsible for the actions of their government and hence have a right (and need) to know what is actually going on. This right could also be based on the notion that the citizens need to be properly informed so as to make  decisions. Since power comes from the people, one might argue that the people have a right to know about how that power is exercised and the information to (in theory) exercise it wisely.

To use a specific example, given the support the United States provides to Saudi Arabia, the citizens of the United States would seem to have a right to know that the Saudis provide funding to anti-American terrorist groups. That information seems quite relevant in deciding how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and to conceal such things from citizens seems to be rather wrong.

To use another example, given the truckloads of public money being dumped into Afghanistan, the American public (and the world) would seem to have the right to know about the widespread corruption.

The obvious reply to this approach is to contend that the good of the people sometimes requires that the state keep secrets from them and others. In support of this, the usual sort of utilitarian argument can be trotted out: to create the most good for the people (and, of course, the world) the United States must sometimes engage in secret activities that might cause problems if they were known. However, this secrecy is justified for the greater good that it creates.

This argument does have significant appeal. After all, the main function of a state is to protect the citizens and ensure the good of the people. This might (and perhaps often does) require actions that might be morally questionable or at least rather embarrassing. As such, for the good of the people, these things must be concealed. Diplomacy, it can be contended, requires considerable duplicity, two-faced behavior and various social games that require secrecy. In this regard, diplomacy between diplomats is very much like diplomacy between friends and co-workers: to get along it is sometimes best that we do not know everything we really think about each other. As such, these leaks could be harmful to international relations and thus the leaking might be wrong.

There are also legitimate reasons to conceal things that are not morally questionable or embarrassing. For example, military secrets or details of intelligence operations seems to fall under the realm of things that can generally be legitimately kept secret. Such leaks could be morally wrong.

This discussion leads to my final point. Given that there can be legitimate grounds for secrecy and real harms arising from leaks, there is a clear need to judge what to leak and what not to leak with due wisdom and moral authority. While the folks at Wikileak claim that they review the documents, it is still a matter of grave concern as to how well the material is assessed before leaking. After all, leaking information about vile misdeeds or exposing wicked deceptions is laudable. Leaking information that undermines attempts to resolve conflicts peacefully or puts people at risk needlessly is certainly morally dubious at best.

Determining who should decide what should be known and what should be secret is a rather difficult matter. Naturally, the folks in the government are likely to be biased and hence their judgment cannot be completely trusted. I have my doubts about the wisdom and moral authority of the folks at Wikileaks, but the need for gadflies does seem clear. However, it would be nice to have gadflies as wise and as ethical as Socrates.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Profiling

by 47 Comments

X-ray machines and metal detectors are used to...
Image via Wikipedia

Currently, the United States does not use profiling in regards to airport security. True, there is a no fly list-a list that has included people who are obviously not terrorists (like American children and a well known CNN journalist) and has generally failed as  method of providing security.

It has been claimed that profiling is not used in the United States because of political correctness. While that might be true, some reasonable arguments can be given against profiling.

One argument is that profiling could be misused in order to target people for harassment on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, nationality and so on.  For example, suppose that Arabs were flagged as higher risk. This would allow security agents (like TSA folks) who do not like Arabs to harass them under the cover of these profiles (“I didn’t pull Abdul out for a special search because I hate Arabs, I did it because he fits the profile”).  This is, of course, the argument used against racial profiling by the police: it results in certain people being targeted more and also provides a cover for harassment.

This is a legitimate concern and is supported by the history of racial profiling in the United States.

Another argument is that  profiling is inherently unfair. After all, such profiles treat a person as a suspect based on factors such as ethnicity and religion rather than on the person’s actual actions. To, for example, pull all darker skinned people out of line for special screening because they have dark skin and let white folks go on through normally would be unfair. While profiling might result in increased security, it is no more justified than allowing the police to pull people over for DWB (Driving While Black).

While these arguments are well worth considering, there are also arguments in support of profiling.

In theory, it does seem possible for profiling to be an effective means of determining threats. After all, terrorists (and other threats) do not arise out of nothing. There are causal factors and other factors that would seem to be connected to such people. Also, there are factors that would tend to indicate that a person is not likely to be a terrorist or threat. To use an obvious example, an FBI agent travelling with her infant son is probably not going to try to take the plane down. In contrast, a young man from Saudi Arabia who is flying in from Yemen who spent a few years in Pakistan is more likely to pose a threat.

The profiling I will be arguing for is not just any sort of profiling. Rather, it is profiling based on proper research and statistical models. It also needs to be subject to rigorous assessment. I do consider the possibility that proper profiling might be beyond the capacity of today’s behavioral sciences and thus that at this time profiling might not be accurate enough to be justified as a security tool.

One argument in favor of profiling is that it enables a more effective use of resources. Rather than randomly pulling people out of line, people who are more likely to be threats can be subject to more attention. This would increase the likelihood that such threats would be caught. To use an analogy, rather than having the police just pull people over at random to check for drunk driving, it makes more sense to look for indicators of drunk driving, such as swerving about.

A second argument in favor of profiling is that it reduces the violation of rights and liberties. Under the current system, everyone is treated as a likely terrorist and subject to body scans or pat downs. With profiling, people who are more likely to be threats can be subjected to the more invasive means of checking.

It might be argued that singling people out would violate their rights. However, it can be countered that the current system is a greater violation. The current system is to treat everyone from the toddler to the grandpa as an equal threat. As such, if singling people out would be a violation, then it would seem that targeting everyone would be an even greater violation. To use an analogy, having the police randomly pull over any driver seems like a greater violation of rights than having the police pull over people who are most likely to be driving drunk.

Naturally, it could be argued that it is more unfair to single people out based on their being more likely to be a threat. After all, they are being treated differently than other people even though they might have actually done nothing to warrant such suspicion-that is, they meet the profile but are not actually a threat.

So, it seems to be a matter of whether it is better to treat everyone as an equal threat or to consider some people as greater threats based on profiling.

As noted above, there is also the open question about the effectiveness of specific profiling methods. It might be the case that the behavioral sciences are not up to the challenge of creating an effective system. It might also be the case that even an effective profile method might be misused enough or employed poorly enough to make it unjust or useless.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saudi Justice

by 9 Comments

Third Saudi State (present day) (Saudi Arabia)
Image via Wikipedia

When Saudi trials make the news, it tends to make clear the nature of Saudi Society. In a recent incident, a female journalist was sentenced to 60 lashes and a two year travel ban because of her involvement in a Lebanese TV show, A Thick Red Line. This show covers social taboos and the episode that led to the sentence featured a Saudi man bragging about his sexual exploits.

Interestingly enough, the fellow was sentenced to five years in prison as well as 1,000 lashes. As such, his punishment was considerably harsher than that handed down against the woman.

The latest turn in this story is that the king of Saudi Arabia decided to pardon the woman. The king, who is regarded by many as working to modernize his country also pardoned a woman who had been a victim of a gang rape. She was to be punished with six months in prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her.

While I see the appeal in whipping people who go on TV to brag about their sexual antics, the sentencing does seem to be rather unjust. After all, a basic moral principle of punishment is that it should be in proportion to the crime. In the case of the man, five years in prison and 1,000 lashes for bragging about his sexual activities seems quite out of proportion to any harm his actions might have caused. In the case of the woman, she seems to clearly not deserve that sort of punishment-or any punishment at all. As such, the king acted rightly in pardoning her.

Given that Saudi Arabia’s legal system is so harsh, that the country has some “interesting” connections to terrorism, and that it is a monarchy (a system of rule which directly opposes our political and moral philosophy of legitimacy) it is sometimes wondered why we are so closely allied to Saudi Arabia. The easy, obvious and correct answer consists of two facts: they have oil and they have an important strategic location next to other oil reserves.

If Saudi Arabia lacked oil and was located somewhere else, we would have no dealings with them-except, perhaps, to be critical of their legal system. Also, we most likely would have invaded the country after 9/11. Of course, without the money provided by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden, there might never have been a 9/11 attack.

As long as our economy relies on oil and as long as certain corporations (and families) maintain close relations to the Saudis, we will continue to stay allied with the Saudis. Of course, this is a marriage of convenience for them as well. If we did not have the money and power they need, they would most likely have nothing to do with us. After all, the sort of sexual bragging that they punish, we so often reward with book deals and TV shows.

 

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: