Hi everyone,
I just got back into College Station today so this is a pretty late post. Even though I missed the last seminar, I would love to hear about what happened. It sounds to me that it was a very interesting seminar with moral/ethical issues being discussed.
I know we discussed this last week's seminar primarily on facebook, but I thought I would present a question that I have been turning over and over here on the blog. We discussed in depth the moral and ethical boundaries in different scenarios when it comes to intelligence gathering and national security issues. There were two scenarios that I'm still not sure about my response. The biggest one is where the agent was willing to participate in inappropriate sexual behavior to save a contact.
ReplyDeleteI was relieved to know that the CIA does not participate, authorize or tolerate such behavior. I would never suggest such a thing nor be participating in such behavior myself! Due to my personal faith in Jesus and background, I am adamant against such behavior. Surprisingly though, I raised my hand that I found the situation to be morally acceptable. I justified it that the agent was willing and encouraging such behavior to keep the contact. It wasn’t me, so then what does it matter! Wrong. It does matter.
After much thought and consideration, I realized that I should not have authorized or supported such behavior. If I wouldn't be willing to do something myself, then I should uphold that standard across the board. It begs the question…just because someone is willing to participate in scandalous behavior that I may not agree with, does it make it alright?
I would argue that it does not make it acceptable. As future leaders, we should be questioning these moral and ethical boundaries, but even more so we should uphold our beliefs and take the moral high ground. We should not be catering or lowering our standards because someone else is okay with that. As Mr. Olson mentioned, we are the United States of America. We are different than many parts of the world and we should be taking the higher road. This is one of those instances where I am glad that the CIA has said “no” to this type of behavior.
However, I found it ironic that they authorized the use of a prostitute to save another contact. Just because agents are not participating in the behavior directly, should we be encouraging or allowing others to do the bidding for us through a 3rd party? Another dimension to debate…
I apologize for the long-winded comment, but I am just curious to see what others may think or add to the conversation.
no apology needed. I like your "long-winded" comment. hahaha.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't at the seminar. But if I was, one question that I would ask is:
is there a difference between ethics and moral standards or morality? Some people use the terms interchangably so I want to hear other thoughts on this and is the U.S. govt operating according to ethics or operating according to moral standards?
Excellent question, Nga. I too would like to hear an opinion about that because I'm not very sure of the difference between morals and ethics either.
ReplyDeleteIf you really think about it, which one of the scenarios discussed in class is actually morally acceptable? having the right to torture another human being? blackmailing? or prostitution? The way I see it, based on my morals, all of them are to some extent immoral. But I ask myself this: What will the outcome be from such an action?
Maybe blackmailing that homosexual will save tens of lives! is it right to do it? is it justifiable? Maybe!
WIth the scenario of using sex to get info, is it really worse for that lady to willingly use an inappropriate behavior than torturing others for info?
But you know what, it gets even more complicated when you compare morals of different cultures and religions. This is where I cant' think about it anymore.
I'm sorry for raising more questions than answers :D
Primarily in response to Allison, but really as a reflection of the entire seminar on the morality of counterintelligence, I think the necessary question that must be stressed is "which is more important, God or country?"
ReplyDeleteI feel like in the situation of the agent using sex as a tactic, obviously, she had aligned her personal ideals more towards that of the action being for the benefit of her country. That's not to say that there was not internal conflict (even in a theoretical situation such as this)
If spies chose to act on the behalf of God or whichever higher power they believed in (assuming a rigidity of moral standards in the faith) instead of acting on the actions of what is "best" for their country, I feel that overall, we would have either a larger number of dead spies or a lot less intelligence from them. Even the act of spying itself can be seen as undesirable by some ethical codes. The main issue is where to personally draw the line.
For me, I could never be any kind of a spy purely for the fact that I am a very direct person and I don't think I could coerce myself into spying on anyone. That, and I am naturally a very clumsy person, so chances are, I would fall off of something or make a big sense accidentally.
Here's an even bigger dilemma: a spy uses objectionable methods to obtain valuable information--should the CIA use it? Do they ignore it, like a court would do for inappropriately obtained evidence? Make use of the information, but punish the spy for breaking the rules? Look the other way and profit from the knowledge, regardless of how it was obtained?
ReplyDeleteI think the way the agency handles such behavior has a lot to do with how covert agents act. In our seminar on leadership (if y'all can remember that far back), we talked about a company's ethical culture. The leaders create that culture by the way the behave and how they handle deviations from that standard. The CIA should be no different.
When it comes to saving lives, however, how much leeway ought to be granted? I think there is a HUGE difference between using sex for personal benefits and using it to gain information that could save lives--but I still think both practices are wrong. Is there a threshold for "minimum number of lives saved" for something to become acceptable? This brings you into "the ends justify the means" territory, a very slippery moral slope.
I know saying "there is no easy answer" is a bit of a cop out, but I'm afraid that that's all I have right now. My personal faith and beliefs absolutely revolt against such behavior, but, as Allison said, if the person doing it was okay with it and it would save lives... Well, there is a temptation to say that the decision is between that person and his or her conscience. Ultimately, I do think such practices are wrong--but I realize that the cost of practicing this moral standard might lead to less effective collection of information.