Save him from himself

In a recent PEW Forum discussion on the pamphlet "Liberty and Power: A Dialogue on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy in an Unjust World," a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution named Shibley Telhami proposed a principle of international ethics that seems highly questionable, and possibly self-serving.

In short, Mr. Telhami argued that, ethically, a state actor CANNOT unilaterally decide to perform an action that would have more pronounced and lasting effects on other nations than it has on the actor. Telhami held that in cases where other nations are affected by certain U.S. actions even more than is the United States itself, it is the ethical duty of the U.S. to include other nations in the decision-making process, with respect to those specific actions.

This general principle is untenable, and the reasons for this might be more readily understood if the principle were tested in an interpersonal arena, rather than in the international one. A useful counter-example is easy to construct: you see a grown man throw his own newborn baby into the shallow end of a swimming pool. The father then sits down and begins to read the newspaper as the helpless infant writhes and sinks slowly to the bottom. You are faced with a decision: jump in and save the baby, or don't? Surely this decision affects the baby in a more pronounced and lasting way than it affects you. So, Telhami, who do you consult before you act? The murderous father? The inaccessible and imperiled baby? Do you maybe call up your uncle to see what he considers the right course of action? Maybe you should take a poll.

Another, possibly more realistic, counter-example: trying to convince your friend to quit smoking. Do you first ask him whether he wants to be convinced? Maybe. What if he says 'no?' Leave it at that? Not if you care about him. Your decision to try to convince the friend to quit smoking may very well impact him in a more pronounced and lasting way than it impacts you, but what if no one else supports your effort? Does that make it unethical? Surely not. Doing what is right for others in the face of otherwise universal opposition is in some circles considered heroic. Sometimes even when you have to save 'the others' from themselves.

It seems clear, then, that Telhami's proposed principle of ethics is flawed.

That being said, it is possible that Telhami finds his own proposed principle so convincing at least in part due to the fact that if the principle were valid, it would allow for the moral condemnation of the current President's Iraq policy. If Telhami were looking for a way to justify condemning the Bush administration's Iraq policy, this proposed ethical principle would provide such a justification. If the principle were valid. Granted, this self-serving motivation behind Telhami's ethical stance is only suspected, not verified. It might instead be the case that Mr. Telhami is just a sloppy thinker.