I never wear socks.-g-
I can't imagine how foreign policy can actually be ethically neutral. I can think of a zillion ethical questions without pausing for breath - the biggies we are looking at now, I would argue, are:
1. a. Is it ethical to use taxpayer money and American military force to protect purely economic interests in other countries?
b. Does it matter if those economic interests are also "strategic" interests, e.g., oil?
2. a. Is it ethical to intervene in the politics and government of other countries?
b. If so, under what circumstances?
c. If so, to what extent? Assassination of leaders? Bribes? Payoffs for opposition forces? Supplying weapons? Military action?
3. a. Do we have an ethical duty to rid the world of evil governments?
b. If so, does it depend on whether the evil government represents a threat to us, or not?
c. Do other countries have the same duty?
d. What if they think we are the ones who are evil?
4. One criticism we keep seeing aired over and over again is that US foreign policy gets involved in other countries until US objectives are met, then we walk away. Are those criticisms justified?
And I don't have any answers for any of those questions, myself.
BTW, I recognize that our present activities vis-a-vis terrorists and OBL are now motivated by self-defense, so the questions are sort of moot right now. In other words, we don't really need to worry about the niceties of ethics, we have the legal, moral, ethical right to return force with force in order to protect the lives of US citizens at home and abroad. Nice of them to make it so easy on us.
Depending on one's ethical code, your milage may vary. I don't expect Buddhists, Quakers, Pacifists and the like to agree with me, but over 90% of the American people agree on this question, which is, as far as I know, a first. |
