On Political Ethics
I would like, if I may, to introduce you to a film which looks into political ethics. This film is Trollhunter, it's from Norway, and below is a link to a clip from that film.
The video is the whole movie, but the relevant clip is from 35:45 to 40:10.
(Apologies for the awful dub)
Anyway, the situation, as you saw, is basically this: There are trolls in Norway, and they are a threat to human life. Hans is employed by the Norwegian government to kill straying trolls. As we see, the Norwegian government goes to some lengths to prevent the populace from knowing that trolls exist. (For a better illustration, watch this link to about 1:22:15) But is that right?
The government has one man hunting down straying trolls (and a significant bureaucracy to support him), which, as we saw in the first clip, can and do kill people. Why isn't it better to keep the populace well informed about serious, but occasional, problems?
Here's what I can assume the Norwegian government's argument is: Trolls are dangerous, and we don't want our citizens to panic or do something stupid. We also don't want to scare off tourists. The more people we have associated with dealing with trolls, the higher a chance there is of a leak. And if we devote too much money to dealing with trolls, someone will ask questions. So we've got to do the best we can to keep this quiet and keep the people safe & ignorant.
The government's point of view is utilitarian and consequentialist. The Norwegian government feels it must deceive and give one man a difficult, unpleasant job in order to keep its citizens safe.
And now for the opposing viewpoint, that of the Volda College students, Thomas, Johanna, and Kalle (and eventually Malica): The citizens of Norway have a right to open knowledge. A better-informed populace is more capable of taking care of itself and is less likely to stumble into trouble unaware. Such a populace will also be more capable of appropriating resources to deal with the troll problem. Moreover, it's wrong to deceive the public.
The students' point of view is deontological. They consider "A government should not lie to its people" to be a categorical imperative.
And so we see the two major schools of ethical philosophy applied to government policy. Maybe Plato was onto something with his whole "philosopher kings" thing - would government be better if policymakers were familiar with philosophy and the ideologies behind their policy goals?
Anyway, the situation, as you saw, is basically this: There are trolls in Norway, and they are a threat to human life. Hans is employed by the Norwegian government to kill straying trolls. As we see, the Norwegian government goes to some lengths to prevent the populace from knowing that trolls exist. (For a better illustration, watch this link to about 1:22:15) But is that right?
The government has one man hunting down straying trolls (and a significant bureaucracy to support him), which, as we saw in the first clip, can and do kill people. Why isn't it better to keep the populace well informed about serious, but occasional, problems?
Here's what I can assume the Norwegian government's argument is: Trolls are dangerous, and we don't want our citizens to panic or do something stupid. We also don't want to scare off tourists. The more people we have associated with dealing with trolls, the higher a chance there is of a leak. And if we devote too much money to dealing with trolls, someone will ask questions. So we've got to do the best we can to keep this quiet and keep the people safe & ignorant.
The government's point of view is utilitarian and consequentialist. The Norwegian government feels it must deceive and give one man a difficult, unpleasant job in order to keep its citizens safe.
And now for the opposing viewpoint, that of the Volda College students, Thomas, Johanna, and Kalle (and eventually Malica): The citizens of Norway have a right to open knowledge. A better-informed populace is more capable of taking care of itself and is less likely to stumble into trouble unaware. Such a populace will also be more capable of appropriating resources to deal with the troll problem. Moreover, it's wrong to deceive the public.
The students' point of view is deontological. They consider "A government should not lie to its people" to be a categorical imperative.
And so we see the two major schools of ethical philosophy applied to government policy. Maybe Plato was onto something with his whole "philosopher kings" thing - would government be better if policymakers were familiar with philosophy and the ideologies behind their policy goals?
great connection to deontology, Griffin. And to Plato's notion of Philosopher Kings--seems like a very privledged class.
ReplyDeleteThe link to The Transparent Society from Wired magazine deals nicely with the issues of how much the public should know. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html
Also--The scene from Batman--(clip not readily available on youtube) where he taps phone lines seems slightly similar--it's a good challenge to deontology scene where Batman acts out of the notion that the ends justify the means--a choice that Kant would disagree with.
Response: Ethics of Keeping Secrets from the Governed
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a very important point regarding political ethics. To what extent are the governed entitled to know the activities of their government. In a representative democracy (like the U.S.), we like to think that the government acts in our best interest. In doing so, the government may find it necessary to withhold information from us, especially with regard to national security. This principle seems to be a factor at play in Trollhunter. The Norwegian government certainly thinks that keeping the truth about the trolls hidden will best protect the people. However, ideally it is the citizens of a country that decide policy and have their government representatives carry it out. This leads to a sort of paradox. How can the government decide what is best for an ignorant populace when it is the people who should decide how the government should act?
This issue has an extraordinary amount of relevance to modern society. Think about the operation that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden. I think most people would agree that withholding intelligence from the general population on this matter was appropriate. The death of Bin Laden was one of those moments where pretty much everyone was in agreement about how the government exercised its power. But then you really have to wonder about what else the government keeps hidden from us. Ever since the cold war, the United States has built up a huge intelligence infrastructure around the world. So the question arises, how much are we entitled to know as a populace? The government may be protecting us to an extent, but if they were abusing power we wouldn't really know. I find that a bit troubling. On the flip side, the government might also use false information to influence popular opinion. The Iraq war comes to mind. The primary cause of our invasion was to topple the Dictatorial regime and secure the "weapons of mass destruction" that were hypothetically a threat to us. But what happened? There never really were any WMDs. Whether or not the Bush administration just had bad intelligence or fabricated it is up for debate. But in the end, congressman from both sides voted overwhelmingly to launch a massive and costly invasion based off of faulty information. Were they acting in our best interest?
I tend to think that the government should be more transparent overall. The threat of government abuse of power carries more weight to me than the possible benefits of keeping secrets from us. Benjamin Franklin once quipped "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." As a general rule, the less we know about government, the more susceptible to corruption it becomes. At the crux of this issue is the old categorical imperative verses utilitarian schools of thought. The government might encroach on a citizen's liberty in the name of security, and they might actually be protecting other citizens by doing so. But what are the implications for the future? There are always scenarios that you could come up with that would justify a government's covert actions. But in the end, we need to keep the government open and accountable lest we lose our essential liberties.