.png)
Ми Україна.
An Opinion Piece by Darren M. Slade, PhD
The moral duty to intercede on behalf of vulnerable Ukrainian civilians might also be supported by examining the immorality of nonintervention. The wrongness of noninterventionism is demonstrated using Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which identifies whether a decision is immoral based on the consequences of universalizing its precedent. The Categorical Imperative asks how an ethical country's inaction would shape society if it were emulated. When universalized, a country's refusal to act would translate to the principle, “No country should intervene to stop civilians from being bombed to death.” From a consequentialist perspective, the repercussions would be quite deplorable.
In terms of virtue ethics, the question is whether society as a whole would be ethical if people were to refuse intervening on behalf of vulnerable civilians. All anyone needs as evidence for the immorality of nonintervention is to look at what happens when ethical countries do nothing to stop the heinous murder of children, such as when Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about 1.5 million Jewish children, as well as tens of thousands of Romani and children with physical and mental disabilities. Deliberately refusing to intervene is what gave tacit approval to these killings in the first place.
Furthermore, Kant’s reversibility (or “Golden Rule”) criterion establishes that nonintervention is immoral by simply asking whether countries would promote inaction if they were the ones being invaded.
But is intervening militarily the morally superior option to no direct military conflict? Or does refusing to intervene on behalf of vulnerable Ukrainian children simply demonstrate a lack of respect for the sanctity of human life, as well as foster suspicion and distrust in our claim to be their ally? Of course, a military intervention against Russia may or may not increase the longevity and well-being of Ukrainian children at all! Indeed, it could do the exact opposite while putting countless other innocent children (in other countries) at risk.
Although, from a social-functionalist viewpoint, ethics should not be selfish or short-sighted but, instead, ought to promote actions that better society and generate long-term benefits. It should go without saying that everyone would benefit if no child was ever bombed to death ever again, but there may be long-term (nuclear?) consequences for everyone if the United States were to go to war with Russia.
So, should we engage in direct military conflict with Russia? The fact is that the general public likely does not possess the nuanced knowledge needed to conclude either way. It's very likely that the United States and NATO does not possess all of the Sufficient Conditions for Intervention that would make them morally obligated to intervene. But so what if they're not morally obligated to do so? Would it not be morally praiseworthy to at least attempt? Or are there “equivalent need” limitations that would place everyone else in equivalent or worse need of help. Are the consequences of direct military engagement with Russia simply too high at the moment? This is, after all, mostly a Russia-Ukraine problem at the moment, and so there's no need to turn it into World War III. Right? I don't know.
I wish I knew the answers and knew the future outcomes. I just hope that all options are put on the table and scrutinized repeatedly so that the world (and those Ukrainian children) can walk away from this crisis unharmed. And if we find that we are morally obligated to intervene militarily, then that's exactly what we should do.
Comments