practical ethics: poppies, hunger and heroin
I rarely keep up with the news lately, I find quick scan of the headlines on the BBC website is enough to be going on with. The other day though I was at a loss for what to do for half an hour or so and switched on the telly. Sadly, the only thing that was worth watching was the ITV news, which had an extended report from an embedded journalist in Helmand province in Afghanistan.
One of the operations that the British are carrying out is aimed at eradicating opium poppy growth in the province. Apparently (according to ITV), 93% of the worlds opium comes from Afghanistan. Of course, a reasonable quantity of that gets sold in the UK as heroin.
Now, I’m aware that drug abuse is a bad thing, and that the easy availability of certain drugs, including heroin, have contributed to the serious decline of some towns in the UK. I can also believe that the Taleban - who I’ll describe as “not the party that I’d vote for - make money from the trafficking of opium. And as I say, I’m not their biggest fan.
On the other hand, the operation that was described in the ITV footage consisted in completely trashing the opium fields in the area. It could be argued that it’s illegal, but quite frankly it’s the major cash crop of the region and pretty much sustains the entire economy - not just the armed forces, but all the other men, women and children in the area.
It made me think about ethics. I have no idea what anyone is trying to do to reduce the dependency of the economy on opium, but just trashing the crop seems unethical. What are people expected to live on? On the other hand, heroin causes misery across the world - is the suffering of a few people that much more important than the suffering of many?
I think, my preferred solution would be to legalise hard drugs, then the opium crop wouldn’t be illegal, the trade could be taxed which would make money for the government to invest in infrastructure. And as a happy side benefit, much of the additional crime associated with illegal drugs - theft for enough cash to get a fix - might be reduced.
What does anyone else think?
Popularity: 9% [?]
Are Consequences Worse Than Intentions?
When I posted about my friend the evangelist, there were some excellent comments from Andrew, and the chaplain about whether intentions or consequences are more important in deciding what is moral.
Now, I think that from a purely practical point of view, you can’t separate the two. And I really don’t know what’s worse.
I’m currently thinking that having good intentions does mitigate you from the blame for bad consequences, and that there being no bad consequences, doesn’t mean that it’s ok that your intentions were bad. So that should mean that intentions determine morality most.
On the other hand, it’s actually the consequences that are important to everyone else, and really, it’s the impact on everyone else that I think we should concern ourselves with. So that would mean that it’s more important to limit the consequences of people’s actions than the intentions behind them.
This ethics and morality stuff gets confusing. On balance, I’d like to suggest aiming for good intentions - which is reasonably easy to control - and not bad consequences. Naturally if you do something with good intentions, then you are planning for there to be only good consequences, but minimising the (almost inevitable) bad consequences is probably more helpful than trying to force the good consequences.
I think it’s like “do as little harm as you can”. What does anyone else think?
Image by Trance-Elbow
Popularity: 7% [?]
The Good Egg wants to be a Missionary
There’s a really nice guy that I went to school with. He’s the sort of person who is so nice, it’s not true. The son of a local vicar, they actually had to invent community service prizes for him at school, he did so many worthy things. He’s quite a good laugh, and the sort of person that it can be a privilege to know, he’s thoughtful, well-spoken, and willing to have interesting conversations. He’s also the sort of person that always asks after your mum and dad, and opens the door for everyone. An all round good egg.
It’s a pity therefore that he really *found* religion whilst at University. Not so much because he feels that it gives him purpose to his life - each to their own. The problem really is what this purpose is, in a practical sense. He’s currently working in a church near his old university, ministering to students, running Alpha courses, and leading small groups. He’s essentially indoctrinating people (who may well be slightly vulnerable) into Christianity.
This makes me a little uncomfortable. Although I know that The Great Commission is an essential tenet of evangelical Christianity, it has always felt a little too coercive to me. Especially when it is in the context of “come and be my friend in church” rather than a more intellectually honest approach.
From my point of view, it gets worse, his current ambition in life is to be a missionary. Perhaps in Africa, or in the Middle East. Maybe someone will tell me that missionaries are not like they were in Victorian times, when they went round destroying indigenous cultures, and spreading fear in their Christianity. Maybe they really do provide help and support to communities that wouldn’t otherwise receive it. But somehow I doubt it - it wouldn’t surprise me if they were still trampling on the local flavour of Christianity in the belief that their own is superior, much like the Byzantine Crusade.
At the end of the day, I think that proselytising borders on the immoral. I can be quite protective of people being introduced to things where they don’t necessarily have access to the other side of the coin. It’s a pity then, that the nicest guy I’ve ever met has decided to cast in his lot with the soothsayers of today. He really is a thoroughly good egg, but no longer in my mind, a really moral one.
Popularity: 7% [?]
