The question posed in today’s reading was whether an embedded agent should have carried out the assassination of a government official in order to further an espionage investigation. Admiral Turner pulled the plug on the investigation by not green-lighting the hit.1 While I agree with him in this case, there are more factors at play here than the mere legality of the agent’s pending act (assassination), or even the life of the government official weighed against the value of the investigation. Whether or not Admiral Turner made the “right” call comes down to a question of rational response to a moral imperative, which is where things get sticky, especially when authors start using phrases like “any means necessary” when commenting on the proposed …show more content…
One of the fundamental concepts of ethics is the idea that morals in actual life are different from the hypothetical morals that exist in the absolute, or in the sorts of vacuum where we most comfortably and dispassionately examine issues like this one.3 We cannot misconstrue the one as the other, particularly when dealing with life and death issues. Moral concepts only become apparent through the application of judgment, not logic. It might be perfectly logical to balance the life of the government official against the value of the intelligence operation and the potential lives saved by allowing the undercover agent to carry out the assassination; however, it is impossible to assume that any moral question – particularly one of life or death – has a solution that is anything less than a hypothetical, metaphysical belief. We see Schopenhauer at odds with Kant on this very issue in Schopenhauer’s On the Freedom of the Will; Kantian philosophy tells us that ethics is grounded in moral purity, but this is academic.4 Schopenhauer tells us, and I agree, that moral value is resident in voluntary justice, which is an arbitrary value, not necessarily a shared
Brandon Smith Mr.Dittmar 12/14/2014 American History Book Report #2 “Killing Lincoln” Killing Lincoln is a very good easy to read historical book. I already knew some about when Lincoln was shot and how he died but this book put in so much more little details that any other thing I have gotten information from. I feel like Bill O'Rreilly did a very good job writing this book. I really like the way that it was wrote using the time and different days for the chapters. That helped give the book some detail and helped me understand what was going on in the book and when important scenes were easier to understand.
In the book killing Kennedy it is the story of how John Fitzgerald Kennedy aka JFK started from the military and climbed the military ladder all the way to become the president of the United States of America and one of the best presidents of the nation at that. It starts about telling about how he cheated death in the tragedy of world war 2 and his submarine the PT-109 it tells how it was cut in half by a Japanese ship but JFK and his crew were still in a part where there was no water and JFK becoming the leader that he will later become as president instructed them all that they were going to swim to an island and so after many agonizing days of trying to find help JFK and his crew are saved and they survive the crash of PT-109. The first
Lincoln predicts his own death in the interpretation of his dream using the Freudian dream theory that determines the manifest (factual) content of a dream and the latent (to be interpreted) content. This same theory can be applied to the story told in Killing Lincoln. The manifest content of the book clearly acknowledges Lincoln 's brilliance, Grant 's military excellence, and Booth 's underdeveloped plan. However, the latent content leaves the meaning and intention of the book to be interpreted by the reader. In reading the book, it is clear that Bill O 'Reilly wishes to convey to the reader the give-and-take relationship that comes with a free society and how the good and evil people within the society shape how we view the United States government.
Many questions occurred concerning the line of sight shot. Oswald was supposedly on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, shooting at a 17 degree angle. The Limousine was traveling at approximately 11.5 miles per hour. According to the official story put out by the Warren Commission, the fatal shot was one of three fired by lone assassin Oswald.
Acts of treason, actual or supposed, litter American history, but questions of loyalty in American history is determined more often by opinion than facts. The various reactions to treason display a fundamental issue regarding loyalty and disloyalty in American history. Loyalty and disloyalty are driven by a similar, but different, essential driving factor that is mostly determined by public opinion. By using specific examples, it is easily detectable that the fundamental issues with deciding a person’s loyalty, which is intertwined with the roots of loyalty and disloyalty that drive the two principles, are public opinion and cause.
From attention to detail to point of view, these qualities supplement the overall theme of balancing personal duty and moral values. In general, it is important to follow personal moral values, such as respecting and acknowledging the value of life. However, in this situation, when many innocent people are exposed to a potential threat, it is necessary to fulfill your duty to protect, even if it opposes your values, for the greater
The beginning of the book primarily focuses on the Civil War. This includes many battles and plans for victory on behalf of the Union and the Confederacy. One of the major issues of the Civil War was the presence of slavery in the southern states. The North was opposed to slavery and other practices in the South. The war lasted for four years under the leadership of President Lincoln and the president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis.
The 16th President of the United States, President Abraham Lincoln, has been assassinated. The fatal shot occurred on April 14, 1865 at the Ford’s Theater in Washington, DC by John Wilkes Booth. President Lincoln, age 56, was pronounced dead in the early morning hours of April 15, 1865. President Lincoln was survived by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, and sons Robert Todd Lincoln, and Thomas “Tad” Lincoln III (Abraham Lincoln Assassination, 2009). The assassination of the President is devastating news for the country.
Unless an agent betrayed his or her country, then he or she should be sacrificed to protect the greater number of people. In the Conventry story, the Conventry and its people were sacrificed to save many. Unfortunately, that was the only way in such a short-term advantage of knowing and acting on the information. In my perspective, letting the Conventry get bombed is unethical. It is such a painful and unfortunate sacrifice, but was it really worth it?
Assignment #1 Review questions Chap. 1 p. 26: 1. A single standard of ethics cannot be applied to all criminal justice agencies. The world is too complex to legislate morality and ethics. The cultures that make up each part of the world are not the same.
Oftentimes, this is done in inhumane ways such as murder or cruelty, justifying the loss of these lives with the fight for supremacy. In all circumstances in this profession, the spy must commit their utmost loyalty to the agency, but the agency will not always protect the spy; it will defend the system at all costs, even if it means eliminating one of their own. For the West, state sanctioned violence is not used against opponents, however the spies are responsible for breaking these rules in order to defend the system. This is one of the main sources of Le Carre’s insight into the issues of secret intelligence, where the novel finds more moral similarities than differences between the East and West, and their respective intelligence services, “I mean you’ve got to compare method with method, and ideal with ideal. I would say that since the war, our methods— ours and those of the opposition— have become much of the same” (Le Carre, 16).
The article Three Trials for Murder by Nicholas Schmidle sheds light on the constitutional right of double jeopardy and questions whether the “military sidestep double jeopardy”? Schmide focuses on the case of Tim Hennis, which many consider being “extraordinary” since legal scholars view U.C. M. J actions to prosecute a military member for crimes committed outside the army as “problematic”. Furthermore, it questions whether Hennis’ rights were violated when he is prosecuted for a third time, after being convicted and acquitted for the same crime. Schmidle article gives specific inside of all three of Hennis trials, and ultimately leaves the readers to decide if the action of the U.C.M.J violated military jurisdiction and the double jeopardy clause.
Admittedly, this is not entirely new ground. In their larger histories of the British intelligence community, Christopher Andrew and Bernard Porter have both shown convincingly how popular authors from the period were implicated in the business of “scare-mongering,” giving voice to a range of public anxieties, from the vulnerability of Britain’s defensive preparations to the specter of foreign espionage.6 David French, David Trotter, and Nicholas Hiley have also provided important contributions on the role of spy fiction in stirring up a hornet’s nest of tension before the First World War.7 We nevertheless feel that there are two avenues that Unashamedly patriotic, their political sensibilities “finely tuned to the cadences of imperial decline,” authors wanted to see more being done by the authorities. British Spy Thrillers Studies in Intelligence Vol. 54, No. 2 (June 2010) 3 require further analysis.
For the humanist who truly wants to find the source that grounds her affirmation that we are invested with intrinsic value and purpose, the fact that God serves as that grounding brings her home. It brings her to true humanism” (104). If there were no objective to morality then that would mean that we would have to redefine purpose. There is no moral value without God.
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.