How “normative” ethics are visible in the Indonesian, Australian and global responses.
‘Normative’ ethics are a part of moral philosophy that doesn’t list any particular ethical actions; though it is able to conclude whether the actions are morally right or wrong. In the given conflict Australia and Indonesia are on the side of the victims, though many would argue with the methods chosen to punish and prevent further terrorism. Indonesia was involved in fighting with global terrorism along with Australia long before grievous attacks of October 2002; nonetheless, whilst working hard on prevention terrorist attacks, they chose a relatively light punishment for the leader of Jemmah Islamiyah. The spiritual head of the organization – Abu Bakar Bashir – elected the image of an elderly man and a humble hard worker in an Islamic school. There was no direct evidence of him towards terrorism, so the court (with the support of Australia, Indonesia and other) accused him of treason and immigration offenses, thus meeting an ethical conflict. Nevertheless, the ASEAN Convention on counterterrorism in 2007 approved more persistence to confront terrorism. As a result, the Convention allowed the extradition even if there is no evident bi-lateral extradition treaty, showing how uncompromising the government has become.
Is it possible for regional governments to balance the normative ethics of the case with the use their power to have any real impact on terrorist activities?
“As we practice resolving dilemmas we find ethics to be less a goal than a pathway, less a destination than a trip, less an inoculation than a process.” — Ethicist Rushworth Kidder. Methods to augment ethics and accountability in the Australian Public Service have grown rapidly with the help of the government. One of the main questions that arise on the subject of terrorism is ‘justice versus mercy’; the dilemma of whether to give an example by strict punishment or to lighten it for learning experience, to be precise. The actions are going to be defined as normative as long as they are justified by the government. In order for customs and laws to become moral, there has to be a normative factor. Norms versus realism has been a crucial subject of debates since 20th century; however, the world became more derisive after the Cold War and the normative paradigms shifted. The discussion of whether the countries are allowed to use violence as a preventative measure was renewed with the global war on terrorism. The government protects the interest and, no less, lives of its citizens or people from other countries they are able to harbor. According to recent views, terrorists are said to be ‘outlaws’, so the government is obliged to deal with them in any way it finds normative.
What would be the “Realist” government response?
According to the political realism, the power invested in the government is a fundamental goal of political actions; thus, it allows politicians to escalate their authority in the domestic area. Within the confines of the Bali bombing, Australian and Indonesian responses were completely reasonable; although the actions of realistic government would appear to be more severe. Another hypothesis indicates that a nation can follow its interests only by abandoning the interests of other countries. As a result, the Australian-Indonesian treaty would not be restricted by the global opinion and give the leaders of terrorist organizations the retributions they deserved. In the theory of political realism, nations should seek the solutions in their own interests. Proponents of the realism theory imply that in the world that is driven by security risks, there is little space left for ethics.
References
Mark R Amstutz. International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Pub. 2008.