Q. Anandpur was a sovereign state surrounded by two strong countries A and B. Due to attack by Country A, Anandpur had asked for support from Country B. With the effort of Country B , Anandpurhad foiled the attack of Country A.To save itself from future attack, Anandpur had accepted the sovereignty of Country B with certain conditions. Under these conditions, any law enacted by Country B for Anandpur could be applicable only after consultation with people of Anandpur.
Meanwhile, Country A had adopted the policy of terrorism to destabilise country B and Anandpur. Many civilians and Army personnel had lost their lives due to inhumanistic and aggressive policy of Country A. Country A had also supported the separatist movement in Anandpur. Even after the effort of Country B, the human development index was very poor in Anandpur. Due to violence and terrorism, Industrial development was also very poor in Anandpur. There was rising discontent among youth due to the high rate of unemployment in Anandpur. Due to the misconception, People of Anandpur thought that in place of Country A , Country B was responsible for all their misery and Poverty. Country B had tried every effort to convince the people of Anandpur that Country A was responsible for all their miseries.
At last, after exhausting all effort, Country B has totally revoked all the concessions provided to Anandpur and acquired the whole region of Anandpur without consulting the people of that region. Arguments given by Country B were that It was done for a temporary period to eradicate the roots of terrorism and improving the human development of that region.
In this Context:
- Discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
- Discuss the ethical dilemmas involved in the above case
- Was the decision taken by country B regarding terrorism eradication ethically right?
Q. Anandpur was a sovereign state surrounded by two strong countries A and B. Due to attack by Country A, Anandpur had asked for support from Country B. With the effort of Country B , Anandpurhad foiled the attack of Country A.To save itself from future attack, Anandpur had accepted the sovereignty of Country B with certain conditions. Under these conditions, any law enacted by Country B for Anandpur could be applicable only after consultation with people of Anandpur.
Meanwhile, Country A had adopted the policy of terrorism to destabilise country B and Anandpur. Many civilians and Army personnel had lost their lives due to inhumanistic and aggressive policy of Country A. Country A had also supported the separatist movement in Anandpur. Even after the effort of Country B, the human development index was very poor in Anandpur. Due to violence and terrorism, Industrial development was also very poor in Anandpur. There was rising discontent among youth due to the high rate of unemployment in Anandpur. Due to the misconception, People of Anandpur thought that in place of Country A , Country B was responsible for all their misery and Poverty. Country B had tried every effort to convince the people of Anandpur that Country A was responsible for all their miseries.
At last, after exhausting all effort, Country B has totally revoked all the concessions provided to Anandpur and acquired the whole region of Anandpur without consulting the people of that region. Arguments given by Country B were that It was done for a temporary period to eradicate the roots of terrorism and improving the human development of that region.
In this Context:
- Discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
- Discuss the ethical dilemmas involved in the above case
- Was the decision taken by country B regarding terrorism eradication ethically right?
Approach:
- Identify the stakeholders
- Identify the ethical issues involved in this case.
- Identify the ethical dilemmas involved in the case.
- Discuss the ethical issues in the decision taken by Country B
- Suggest the best possible course of action to tackle such situation
Stakeholders:
- People of Anandpur
- Country A
- Country B
- Society at large
a) Ethical issues involved in the case:
- Aggression by Country A on Anandpur : In place of peaceful coexistence and respecting the sovereignty of other states, Country A had done unethical act. It is also against the spirit of International Ethics.
- Misconception among the people of Anandpur : Even after doing so much help by Country B for the people of Anandpur, People of Anandpur did not understand the humanistic effort of country B
- Trust deficit between youth of Anandpur and Country B : People of Anandpur had no trust on Country B even after their concerted effort to make Anandpur a better place to live.
- Decision by Country B to acquire the whole Anandpur region without Consultation by people : The move by Country B can be called as undemocratic and against the spirit of trust and friendship.
(b) Ethical dilemmas involved in the case:
- Short term Vs Long Terms: As a short terms measures acquisition of Anandpur Vs long terms measures like development of Anandpur.
- Larger public Consultation Vs direct Acquisition: Country B should adopt the policy of larger public consultation Vs direct acquisition for larger public interest.
- public trust Vs larger public interest : As per maintaining the public trust without acquisition of Anandpur Vs in larger public interest and eradication of terrorism Anandpur should be acquired
- Constitutional morality: constitutional morality refers to the conventions and protocols that govern decision-making where the constitution vests discretionary power or is silent. In short, the means are as sacred as the ends
(C) Decision by Country B to eradicate terrorism
As country B had acquired territory of Anandpur for larger public interest. From the Utilitarian principle this step is right. But path adopted by country A is not right as per deontological Principle. This steps was not democratic as larger public consultation was not conducted before acquisition was done. But Country B had done all the efforts to bridge the trust deficit with Anandpur. Even after lots of efforts by Country B, there is a misconception among the people of Anandpur. There was also menace of terrorism in Anandpur. So as short term measures it can be ethically right to acquire the anandpur for larger public interest in terms of eradication of terrorism and generation of employment.
But this step was not a democratic one. So in long terms, Country B should have consultation with Anandpur and accept the provisions of earlier agreement.
Approach:
- Identify the stakeholders
- Identify the ethical issues involved in this case.
- Identify the ethical dilemmas involved in the case.
- Discuss the ethical issues in the decision taken by Country B
- Suggest the best possible course of action to tackle such situation
Stakeholders:
- People of Anandpur
- Country A
- Country B
- Society at large
a) Ethical issues involved in the case:
- Aggression by Country A on Anandpur : In place of peaceful coexistence and respecting the sovereignty of other states, Country A had done unethical act. It is also against the spirit of International Ethics.
- Misconception among the people of Anandpur : Even after doing so much help by Country B for the people of Anandpur, People of Anandpur did not understand the humanistic effort of country B
- Trust deficit between youth of Anandpur and Country B : People of Anandpur had no trust on Country B even after their concerted effort to make Anandpur a better place to live.
- Decision by Country B to acquire the whole Anandpur region without Consultation by people : The move by Country B can be called as undemocratic and against the spirit of trust and friendship.
(b) Ethical dilemmas involved in the case:
- Short term Vs Long Terms: As a short terms measures acquisition of Anandpur Vs long terms measures like development of Anandpur.
- Larger public Consultation Vs direct Acquisition: Country B should adopt the policy of larger public consultation Vs direct acquisition for larger public interest.
- public trust Vs larger public interest : As per maintaining the public trust without acquisition of Anandpur Vs in larger public interest and eradication of terrorism Anandpur should be acquired
- Constitutional morality: constitutional morality refers to the conventions and protocols that govern decision-making where the constitution vests discretionary power or is silent. In short, the means are as sacred as the ends
(C) Decision by Country B to eradicate terrorism
As country B had acquired territory of Anandpur for larger public interest. From the Utilitarian principle this step is right. But path adopted by country A is not right as per deontological Principle. This steps was not democratic as larger public consultation was not conducted before acquisition was done. But Country B had done all the efforts to bridge the trust deficit with Anandpur. Even after lots of efforts by Country B, there is a misconception among the people of Anandpur. There was also menace of terrorism in Anandpur. So as short term measures it can be ethically right to acquire the anandpur for larger public interest in terms of eradication of terrorism and generation of employment.
But this step was not a democratic one. So in long terms, Country B should have consultation with Anandpur and accept the provisions of earlier agreement.
