The National Intelligence Estimate is intended to be a policy-guiding document for the American President. Normally, when this document says that something is the case, the President has taken this to be true. Not so with our current mental giant, George W. Bush, who chose to ignore the official report that Iran is no longer actively engaged in a nuclear weapons program. Rather than act accordingly and acknowledge his rhetorical errors over the past several months with regard to Iran, Bush chose to spin this revelation into proof that, because Iran did have such a program at one time, they could start it again and thus remain a major threat to US security.
What does this have to do with ethics? A great deal actually, as it represents a common mistake and a lingering source of conflict for applied ethicists. Often, ethical disagreements are actually arguments over the facts. Gun control is a prime example. The debate over whether we ought to allow widespread gun ownership is quality fodder for considering social policy ethics and individual rights. However, this often breaks down into what the Bill of Rights actually says about this issue, as though this document tells us what we ought to do.
The problem, with regard to Bush’s inability to recognize that his views on Iran are flawed, is that it becomes difficult to determine what we ought to do when there is persistent disagreement over what is the case. Analogously, we cannot decide what we ought to do with regard to abortion if we cannot agree on the status of a fetus as either a full-fledged person or something less.
A further issue raised by Bush’s obstinate position on Iran concerns our ethical responsibility to change our views based upon relevant information. For example, suppose I hold the view that lying is always wrong, no matter what. My good pal, the ethical philosopher, provides me with numerous instances when lying may have been a positive thing. Perhaps he is a consequentialist who is focused on the outcome of certain benevolent lies. I might continue to hold the view that lying is always wrong, but I am obligated to consider my friend’s perspective and give some plausible reply to his concerns. Otherwise, my own position becomes suspect.
Bush has utterly failed to do this throughout his presidency, and his unwavering stance on Iran is yet another example of this ethical shortcoming. Close-minded stubbornness, especially in light of factual information, is not only frustrating and annoying, it is morally wrong. A president should set an example of good leadership, and good leaders listen to intelligent people and act accordingly. Bush does not do this, and the result is both poor leadership and a lousy example of appropriate conduct.
Perhaps the one bright spot of this ugly scenario is the example that Bush is providing for all of us. We often think of “setting an example” in a positive light, but many examples are not positive. They remain helpful to us because they show us, quite clearly, who we do not want to be and why we do not want to be a particular way. Thus, Bush is giving us a clear example of why we should be open-minded and use our reasoning to make important decisions. Otherwise, we risk following the example of our leader, which is clearly not what we want to do.
Comments
Leave a Reply