Morality depends on the ability of an individual to choose between good and
evil, thus, entailing freedom of the will and the moral responsibility of the
individual for his actions. It is obvious this is so for the individual, but
what about groups and governments? Do they have the ability to choose between
good and evil, do they have free will and therefore are they subject to the same
paradigms of morality as the individual or does an autonomous morality apply.
What if we relate this concept of morality to a present day moral dilemma? Such
as should the United States government fire cruise missiles at Serbian cities in
order to force the government of Serbia to comply with NATO demands of
withdrawal from Kosovo? What moral questions should be asked? Further yet, as we
are members of a representative democracy, do the citizens bear any of the
responsibility of the government's actions? Am I responsible for the government
I choose? Being that it is the actions of a governments we wish to question the
morality of, we must know what the present justification for or against the
launch of cruise missiles at Serbia and what the consequences of that decision
would be. It can be conjectured that the "official rational" of the
United States government in its decision to use cruise missiles on Serbia is
based on cost/benefit analysis of what would be in the best interest of the
nation and the world—a utilitarian morality. The Serbian government has
invaded and seeks to undermine the sovereignty of Kosovo while using genocidal
tactics to control the population. The US is acting on what it believes to be
the greatest good for the greatest number. But who is the government to place a
market value on human life? Is it moral and does the government have the right
to place such a value on human life? And who is responsible for their decision?
The official utilitarian rationale of the United States government does place a
market value on human life Kant writes: "Now morality is the condition
under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, for only thereby
can he be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends”, survival of the
individual in a group is the end. If we are to treat men otherwise, as a means
to an end, we must make that a categorical imperative and we must treat it as if
that action will be a universal law of nature laws to live by). Hence, to do
harm to others, to place a market value on man, would be immoral since it would
harm humanity. Likewise, it is immoral for the United States to sacrifice ten
thousand lives in hope of saving more. It must be asked "what if everyone
sacrificed ten thousand lives?". According to Kant’s theory of the
Universal law, "We must be able to will that a maxim of our action become
universal law, this is the canon for morally estimating any of our actions"
(Kant). Perhaps it is a touch ironic that the very document the US was founded
on reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
This, like Kant's moral philosophy of "universal maxims," proclaims
that man has intrinsic absolute value. Yet, so quickly are we ready to disregard
this declaration as our cost benefit analysis dictates. Slavery was abolished on
the principle of the absolute value of man. Why should we disregard this now? Do
we suspend the unalienable rights to life whenever it would be most prudent? The
United States must ask itself whether it wishes to make a maxim of placing value
on human life. It must be remembered that by lowering the value of life of
others, we at the same time lower our own value. Governments and institutions
are composed of a completely different dynamic than that of the individual. This
leaves man curious as to whether to obey the same set of morals. These moral
issues lead to the question of whether or not a man is responsible for what his
government does. I am inclined to believe that either philosopher would not
think that the individual is fully responsible for the actions of his government
so long as they do not participate in the government's decision-making process.
It is possible to argue that, if all individuals (regardless of country) are
responsible for their government's actions, then the ten thousand Serbians that
are likely to killed by missile strike have warranted it, as they stepped
outside the moral circle by allowing Milosevic to remain in power. As Kant would
see it they have left the kingdom of ends by breaking their promise to treat
others humanly by allowing an inhumane leader to remain in power. So as a result
they are responsible for the actions of their government. Similarly, in the
United States, while a man may vote for a particular set of government
officials, it is not possible to know all of their hidden agendas and responses
to events in the future. Furthermore, if a man is a pacifist and votes for only
pacifist government officials, but is out voted by the rest of the nation for
government officials who opt for missile strikes when diplomacy fails, he cannot
be held responsible. It can be argued that it is a man’s duty to convince
others that their beliefs were misguided and immoral. But to do that supposes
that people are rational and will listen to a rational argument instead of
personal beliefs and to politicians who sound good. Story, most often, is more
powerful than argument. The fact is that the majority most often cannot be
convinced. The government of the United States is also a representative
democracy and its citizens can only try to elect the most qualified leaders.
Unlike a direct democracy, it is not the job of the people to make policy (only
to check power). Voters choose leaders to make responsible and moral choices
when creating policy. Fundamentally, responsibility for firing missiles at
targets in Serbia lays in the hands of those who will and can make the final
decision to fire the missile and sacrifice lives. Just as we can not kill
civilians in Serbia based on the actions of Slobodan Milosevic, a man, as an
individual, holds little accountability for the decisions of individual human
beings in power, especially if he did not elect those individuals into power.
Those in power are human beings and influenced by many variables and,
accordingly, they will make decisions as such. Ultimately, those who are morally
responsible for the actions of government, are those in power-- the actual
individual or group who must make a decision. As they exercise their freewill in
their actions and decisions, they too must bear the responsibility for their
actions. It is not so much that the government should act morally but that the
individuals and groups with the power to act, should act morally. Still, we must
wonder if a government has the same duty to act morally as would an individual.
Perhaps the only manner in which governments and institutions are capable of
acting is capable through cost/benefit analysis. Is a government capable of
analyzing the situation that of the Indian execution in Bernard Williams essay,
“Utilitarianism and Integrity”? While a single man may not be responsible
for the actions of his government, he still does have a moral obligation to act
morally in spite of the consequences. Man is accountable for his action or
inaction in face of immoral government action. Even if he is not successful in
acting out of moral duty, a man cannot be accused of being immoral because of
failure. Blame must be laid at the door of those who did knowingly, and out of
free will, act immorally. Inaction against evil is evil. Even if a man has no
prospect of changing the government's missile policy toward Serbia, even if he
can't save ten thousand lives. The moral obligation to do what is in his power
to convince family, friends, and all those that will listen that the government
is acting immorally. Though it may not be possible to convince the federal
government to alter its policy, the obligation remains to let the government
know that its actions are immoral, if only by a single e-mail to a
congressman/woman. Inaction in the face of immorality is just as immoral as
acting immoral. Success. Consequence. These are not the judgment of one's
immorality, it is the intention. The S.S. officer of Nazi Germany is guilty of
his immoral crimes precisely because he followed immoral orders. By not
protesting the immorality of his orders the S.S. officer is immoral according to
both Mill and Kant. A man is not accountable for the actions of his government,
but does have the responsibility, an obligation or duty, to do what is moral
even in the face of adversity and low probability of success. Directly affect
lawmakers may not be possible but writing letter to congress and peaceful
protesting are viable options. These protests and expressions of ideas are what
this country was built on and allows us to discover for ourselves what is
morally correct. It is important that we become responsible for our decisions
and accountable for their moral repercussions.