In your journal, discuss your thoughts in regards to the “Think About It” question: Please read through the entire scenario and responses and consider how scenario-based discussions in ethics can vary significantly based on the life experiences and the values of each individual. It is these very differences that lead to a necessity of ethical codes within intelligence communities and organizations in order to guide ethical thinking and training towards a mutually agreed upon ethic. You will need this information to complete your journal entry this week and all those to follow.
I appreciate the approach that Olsen took to put this book together in a style that encourages scenario-based learning. The way he lays out the chapter pertaining to our “Think About It” question allows us to take a dynamic approach to how we contextualize and integrate realistic scenarios into our ethical decision-making structure. It affords us with the opportunity to reflect on our own ideas, opinions, and questions, ultimately guiding our decision-making based on the beliefs and values present in our own ethical frameworks.
This week’s question focused on whether it would be morally acceptable for the CIA to send Brian to Africa under cover as a journalist for World News Weekly. Fundamentally, I see no moral dilemma with the strategy the CIA is utilizing. Applying the utilitarian approach, I recognize that the CIA and Brian will engage in non-official cover, tradecraft, techniques and tactics that are deceptive, and degrade universally accepted moral laws in order to acquire intelligence and carry out a successful clandestine HUMINT operation in Africa. Naturally, anyone outside of the Intelligence Community would have a divergent opinion, and argue that virtually everything the CIA is engaging in and acting upon is immoral and unethical. What everyone should remember is that that you cannot apply Moral Rights Theory, The Kantian Approach, or any other theory that precludes the ability to act immorally in order to achieve the greatest, “continual preference satisfaction”, when evaluating the CIA.
127 our experts are availableright now
In essence, the CIA exists as its own ethical egoist, selfishly motivated by its own corporate self-interest. Applying the line of reasoning, “if there is something that I always desire or want, then it ought to be considered “good” for me”. This endorses the idea that the CIA desires and wants to gather HUMINT; the tactics, (no matter how unhappy, frustrating, immoral or deceptive it makes others feel) is outweighed by the overall preference satisfaction of the CIA. This isn’t to say I didn’t question some of the choices the scenario made. First, I couldn’t understand why the CIA would risk having to publicly indemnify or expose a well-known news organization, instead of setting up a front company or false entity for which Brian could operate under.
Second, there are certain professions that are legally off limits for individuals to pose under (i.e. clergy, global humanitarian aid organizations, medical doctors, etc.) and journalism tends to straddle the legality line. What the CIA should do is to set Brian up as an independent reporter or blogger, to utilize his journalistic background. This will avoid the legal repercussions, consequences, and ramifications (for Brian, World News Weekly, and the CIA) if his cover is blown. By amending the cover approach using the aforementioned ways, I think would help bridge and narrow the sizable gap that exists between the ethical and non-ethical sides when examining the inner workings of the CIA.
