STORIES

Credits

Archives

Bush’s Dilemmas:

King Solomon faced two women, each claiming a baby to be her own. Instead of asking for evidence, and making his best guess, he ordered that the baby be split in half by a cleaver. One of the women collapsed in tears, offering to give up her claim, and the wise king granted the baby to her.

Will President Bush show a similar wisdom about the moral dilemmas he faces in light of last week’s terrorist attacks? Is there any such wisdom to be found? As a human being, I am riveted and terrified by the question of what Bush and the U.S. military will do; as a philosopher, I am struck by how many age-old ethical dilemmas Bush will have to navigate in the coming weeks. Here are just a few:
Punishment without trial? The attacks gave Bush temporary latitude in public opinion to have the United States be the judge, jury, and executioner of suspected terrorists, through military strikes and assassinations. Should Bush use that latitude, in the name of quick and urgent justice, or seek international cooperation and prosecution under the rule of law?

Harming the innocent. How cautious should Bush be about the loss of innocent life in a war on terrorism — the families and villagers likely to be near terrorist targets? Should Bush direct the military to take extreme and risky measures to avoid such losses? In the larger picture, how should Bush weigh the enormous loss of American and foreign lives that would result from wars against other nations?

Ignoring rights for the greater good. How far should Bush restrict civil liberties in his war on terrorism? Should he push for racial profiling to target all dark-complexioned men attempting to board airplanes or buy fertilizer? Should Bush allow intelligence agencies to monitor e-mail without warrants? What about hiring known thugs and murderers to help intelligence efforts?

Lying for the greater good? Some experts believe the terrorists have an extremely loose command structure, in which specific attacks are planned and executed by individual cells. So perhaps bin Laden himself did not direct, fund, or have specific foreknowledge of last week’s attacks. If the evidence implicating bin Laden is uncertain, should Bush admit it to the American public?

All these dilemmas depend on two hard questions. First, will the given measure really result in punishing those responsible and reducing terrorism? Bush is receiving much assistance on this question, from military advisers and intelligence experts. Most important, would a military campaign simply create new legions of terrorist recruits? Would it unwittingly help fundamentalists increase their ranks and overthrow Western-supported Arab leaders? Is there any way to stem the tide of Arab anti-Americanism, short of abandoning Israel and letting Hussein retake Kuwait? These are questions for the experts, and ultimately for history, to determine.

The second question is a very different one: do the ends justify the means? Is a chance of reducing terrorist ranks, or of catching some perpetrators, sufficient to justify assassination, war, the killing of innocents, substantial reductions in civil liberties, or deception of the American public? For this, Bush will have to look to the kinds of advisers he canvassed about stem cell research: religious leaders, ethicists, the public, and his own judgment and conscience.

Unlike some cynics, I believe Bush will wrestle with this second question. Though quick to express anger and make fierce threats, as of this writing Bush has shown great restraint. Was this only a momentary delay, or was it part of careful preparations, moral as well as political, diplomatic as well as military, for a cautious and internationally sanctioned plan of action? At this point I am hopeful, not about the elimination of terrorism, but about the possibility that Bush, and with him the U.S. government, may follow wisdom and moral integrity in wrestling with these dilemmas, rather than blind instinct or the politics of power.

Eric Gampel, Department of Philosophy