I don't understand or accept it. While your point about unintended financial consequences is very valid, I find this the lowest threshold of decision making.
I don't steal staplers at work, not because I might get caught, or because everybody does it, or because it may adversely affect my company, or due to some other unforeseen consequence. I do it because I've thought a lot about stealing and have concluded that it's wrong to do so.
The US has overwhelming military force (a house full of staplers). The US and/or France could have easily taken the decision to not deliver military satellites to the UAE (or to use political means to block it).
Individuals have moral agency. Corporate bodies such as governments do not. It is a category mistake to attribute agency to them. Governments are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral.
Defense satellites are no more staplers than monads are Scottish ballads. Defense satellites do not organize documents. They are tools to facilitate the use of violence. The UAE military establishment is following the same rationales as the US's - a bigger stick better insures achieving diplomatic objectives.
Groups are made up of individuals. Those individuals are responsible for their actions, and hiding behind a group is in my opinion an immoral act. A group made up of individuals acting immorally in that way, is itself immoral. QED, or something.
How can an entity which consists of between dozens to hundreds of thousands of people, each of whom has limited agency over the aggregate actions of that entity, and can be replaced at any time while fulfilling the same function (on paper) be remotely capable of demonstrating human-like moral agency?
Here's another question: "How can a human being, which consists of many neurons, each of which has limited agency over the aggregate actions of that entity, be remotely capable of demonstrating moral agency?"
Incidentally, I noticed that you substituted 'human-like moral agency' for 'moral agency' in the OP. I never said states have human-like moral agency (nor am I making a claim to the contrary per se).
No it's a rhetorical question, turn it into one with an answer and you'd have rebutted the argument.
You might also note that the answer to your question is that they don't. It is a problem applicable at scale - and we do terrible things to single neurons all the time in the name of science.
States have not-human-like moral codes: agree
Amoral states: don't agree
I believe each group of people have their own social and moral codes that guide their behavior. I don't believe its something easy to understand, determine or represent.
Corporate bodies still have moral or immoral agenda, so it's unrealistic to define them as amoral.
There are some governments whose primary agenda is, say, to develop green energy, and some other whose primary agenda is, say, to bomb other countries to the ground.
Wake me up when US decides to sell it military tech for security and not money. I agree that financial consequences might not be a priority in decision making, but at the end of the day US (or rather the corporations, which can no longer be attributed to just US) are interested in money. I don't think UAE will stop buying stuff just because it is know to be tainted, but they get upper hand in bargaining the price.
Also I don't understand your analogy to staplers fully. If US is a house of staplers and UAE (or any other nation) is not an employee there then the only reason they are not stealing is because they lack the skill.
On an individual level it is relatively easier to make decisions regarding moral issues like stealing but that doesn't work for a group.
What do you think spy agencies do? They spy on each other, I believe the part that is wrong is when they spy on innocent citizens. But intercepting military communications is what they do period.
Right or wrong its their job, we may not agree with it but its what they are put there to do.
I'm a bit weary of this statement. Just because we created a institution who's job it is to secretly break laws abroad, does not mean that we don't have the right to say "hey, maybe institutionalizing criminal activity abroad was a bad move".
I argue it was. I think that saying that we have these unalienable rights which God has given to all humans, creating a system of democracy around agreeing on them and settling disputes, and then saying "oh, but these rules only apply to how we treat ourselves" is crazy.
If we've decided spying on our own citizens is bad, we should not do it to others. We would (and do) get upset if the government secretly and without cause taps a company's server. We have a right to be upset if China sells us routers which are bugged. We all agree that those are bad things. Yet we do them to others.
You are forgetting this is being backed by Politicians and the organizations lawyers. To them it is not illegal what they are doing, the laws dont apply to people who are not in the US and that is why they think is ok to spy on foreign nationals abroad.
>We have a right to be upset if China sells us routers which are bugged. We all agree that those are bad things. Yet we do them to others.
This is the hypocrisy of it all. When you do it its bad but when we do its not. Do as we say not as we do. This is the part I dont agree with (and spying on innocent people).
Political manoeuvring between states isn't a game that you can just choose not to play. Gathering intelligence about what the other players are doing, or intend to do, is an absolutely necessary part of the whole gambit. If the US and others didn't do this, they would be playing blind against better informed opponents.
Each country is a team, competing on the political, military and economic fronts. Spying on your own citizens is wrong because they are supposed to be teammates, not adversaries. When this is done to consolidate power among those who are meant to be working in our best interests, we see that as an abuse of power and a subversion of the mechanisms of democracy in our own state. It's bad for the long term health of the political system of any democratic nation.
Spying on your opponents is a completely different issue, as typically you are working in your team's best interests. Like many issues in life, it's complicated, and taking a hard line moral stance on the issue just isn't practical.
I upvoted you because I think you raise an important question, but I'm also trying to point out that spying at home and abroad can't necessarily be evaluated on the same criteria. There are practical reasons to stop a government from spying on its own citizens, it isn't necessarily a moral argument.
Treating every country as your opponent does not help either. Each country trying to outdo others will only lead to increased hostility and distrust in the world. At least the countries in comfortable/powerful position can avoid operating in survival mode and resist spying on non-hostile nations.
Which would mean something, if asymmetric warfare weren't as potentially devastatingly effective as it is or it didn't have huge ramifications for our ability to protect and enforce treaty agreements with friendly neighbors.
How do you propose to track the development, sale or transport of nuclear arms without an intelligence service undertaking covert surveillance?
How do you plan to stay informed of the actions and unit deployments of military forces by antagonists, or aware of the political allegiances and likely responses of your notional allies?
I mean right now in various former Soviet bloc countries, there's a lot of back-door manoeuvering going on which is fomenting political tension (you may have seen the unrest in Bulgaria recently, or you know, when the Russians invaded Georgia) in large part due to old cold war east/west divides - even if the prize these days is development and construction contracts (and probably a lot of bribes) and not determining which land gets turned into radioactive waste.
The idea that there are clear good guys who are definitely on "our" side is farcical - country's aren't individuals. They're large aggregate groups, pulled in a million different directions, and their governments consist of a shifting mirage of faces which may or may not be trustworthy and which a good deal of time is spent keeping up with to make sure 'we' know what we're dealing with at all levels.
That's like saying, "What do you think members of the Inquisition do? Right or wrong, their job is to forcefully convert people's religion under threat of death or torture."
I can see the need, and indeed the duty, for our spy agencies to spy on our enemies. But our allies? Our citizens?
You cant make that argument at the time of the Inquisition it was acceptable to kill people in that manner. Hopefully 600-800 years from now this kind of spying will be a thing of the past.
If it weren't a spy agency, but named something else, would it still be okay that they're engaged in highly illegal activities?
Like, we can't murder people. But they can. We can't listen in to anyones conversation. But they can. We can't inject packets that make Daddy look like a child pornographer. But THEY can.
So what makes them so different, since they derive their powers from the state, which is formed on the basis of every citizens' participation in the state agency? Why is it acceptable that we formulate society on the basis of the rule of law, except for a (not-insignificant) percentage of that society is allowed to repeatedly, violently, and without repercussion, violate those laws?
Is it not clear to those who support the military-industrial state, that they are allowing the very conditions that the military is supposed to prevent: namely, the creation of a super-class of humanity who have rights and privileges not granted to the majority?
How anyone can justify this state of affairs as 'normal' or 'acceptable' in this day and age of Civics Classes (do they still teach that?) I just don't understand. It is entirely not acceptable, on the basis of crimes against humanity, to in any way support the activities of the US Military-Industrial complex. It is the most dire threat to the human species that we have allowed this Super-class of uber-mensch to allow themselves the powers they have granted.
Yes it is different because they are a spy agency. Just look at when Militaries fight each other. Are they committing Murder? Maybe in the biblical sense but not in a legal sense.
>So what makes them so different
They are the government. Dont agree with it but they have already determined they are legally different.
Nixon Quote: "Oh, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"
>namely, the creation of a super-class of humanity who have rights and privileges not granted to the majority?
>Dont agree with it but they have already determined they are legally different.
And therein lies the crux of this problem:
> the creation of a super-class of humanity who have rights and privileges not granted to the majority?
What good is government if it divides itself in half and excludes its constituents from control? Its not a government, but then rather an instrument of oppression.
It seems the new elite-society entry package requires a security clearance. What bollocks!
But intercepting military communications is what they do period.
Intercepting the communications of their allies by subverting their equipment? That seems like an incredibly foolish and short-sighted way to behave.
If the US is saying it can't be trusted because spies will be spies, they'll lose huge satellite contracts, no one will trust US companies, no-one will trust US standards, and no one will want to play along with orgs dominated by the US like NATO, the World Bank or the UN. Legitimacy and soft power is a fragile thing, and spying on your allies is a great way to lose their tacit consent.
We need reforms and more oversight to start. Putting backdoors in consumer devices should not be tolerated but implanting something into a military device is fair game. Let's see what France Germany China and Russia's etc govt are doing in secret.
While I understand they'd try such things against countries they consider enemies, I disagree it's a good strategy when it involves allies - pursue such a strategy and you soon won't have any allies or respect.
Laws of morality do not apply to states. India has suffered a lot because it failed to understand this basic fact. I dont think there is any moral argument against what government is doing. The only argument is that American government is not strong enough to go ahead with these kinds schemes any more.
I may not steal staplers, and would certainly not pee in my neighbour's letter box except if really drunk, but, if I were in the position of Israel, which is a very unconfortable position, a war in fact, I would certainly work hard to find a way to listen to my hostile neighbours.
I don't steal staplers at work, not because I might get caught, or because everybody does it, or because it may adversely affect my company, or due to some other unforeseen consequence. I do it because I've thought a lot about stealing and have concluded that it's wrong to do so.
The US has overwhelming military force (a house full of staplers). The US and/or France could have easily taken the decision to not deliver military satellites to the UAE (or to use political means to block it).