Moral Obligation of the US
PHI 208
Moral Obligation of United States for the World Against Dictators
PHI 208: Ethics and Moral
Moral Obligation of United States for the World Against Dictators
Part 1: Introduction
“It is our moral responsibility to stop genocide” said Alina Sierra Sedlander of
Metairie LA (The Jesuit Review, August 2017). In August of 1990, Iraq’s tyrant leader
Saddam Hussein ordered his military force to invade and annex the neighboring country
of Kuwait. The primary purpose of the invasion is to conquer Kuwait’s oil reserves and
regain Iraq’s power, influence, and money after years of war with Iran. Iraq forcefully invading
a country and using violence made the United States wage war against Iraq and
its ruthless leader Hussein.
The stake of this ethical question lies in whether the United States has a moral obligation
and authority to take actions against dictators that are committing atrocities towards their citizens.
The moral and social values of the United States to interfere with other country’s issues and
troubles are echoed my President Barack Obama. “America’s reputation suffers, and our ability to
bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and
genocide.” (Obama, N.D., as cited in Lindberg 2019). However, pundits of this philosophy are
quick to point out potential issues that may arise with the intervention of the United States.
Internal issues within the country are often overlooked instead of focusing on external issues such
, as military intervention against dictators. Furthermore, the United States’ action relies heavily on
the taxpayer’s money and the cost of its own citizens’ life through
military actions.
As critics of the United States’ actions and interference with other nations’ problems
state, the country already has internal issues it has to prioritize. I will argue that as the world’s
greatest superpower, the United States has the means and capability of successful intervention
against ruthless dictators who commit crimes and atrocities against its citizens.
Part 2: Ethical Argument
The United States have the world’s strongest military in the world. The American
dominance in the military realm equips the United States with the capability to take actions
against any dictators around the globe. With the projected annual budget of $750 billion in fiscal
year 2020, it accounts for 40% of the global military spending (Miller & O’Hanlon, 2019). With
its budget, the United States can carry out military interventions against dictators regardless if the
dictator has its military to deter any military actions. Military intervention is an effective tool for
foreign policy that also acts as deterrence for other nation leaders to omit committing human right
violations and atrocities against its citizens (Choi & James, 2016).
Part 3: Explanation and Defense
The ethical theory of utilitarianism aligns with the argument that the United States do
have a moral obligation to intervene, occupy or wage war against foreign nations ruled by
dictators who are carrying out atrocities on that nation’s citizen. Utilitarianism foundation is
based on its founder, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham presents that the action that offers the most
pleasure and the least amount pain has the greatest morally right option. He introduces the notion
that pleasure, and pain are able to be identified and measured (Thames, 2018). Additionally,
John Stuart Mill took Bentham’s theory and supplemented it to add a more precise theory. Mill
differentiated the definition of happiness, which was originally thought of as the
PHI 208
Moral Obligation of United States for the World Against Dictators
PHI 208: Ethics and Moral
Moral Obligation of United States for the World Against Dictators
Part 1: Introduction
“It is our moral responsibility to stop genocide” said Alina Sierra Sedlander of
Metairie LA (The Jesuit Review, August 2017). In August of 1990, Iraq’s tyrant leader
Saddam Hussein ordered his military force to invade and annex the neighboring country
of Kuwait. The primary purpose of the invasion is to conquer Kuwait’s oil reserves and
regain Iraq’s power, influence, and money after years of war with Iran. Iraq forcefully invading
a country and using violence made the United States wage war against Iraq and
its ruthless leader Hussein.
The stake of this ethical question lies in whether the United States has a moral obligation
and authority to take actions against dictators that are committing atrocities towards their citizens.
The moral and social values of the United States to interfere with other country’s issues and
troubles are echoed my President Barack Obama. “America’s reputation suffers, and our ability to
bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and
genocide.” (Obama, N.D., as cited in Lindberg 2019). However, pundits of this philosophy are
quick to point out potential issues that may arise with the intervention of the United States.
Internal issues within the country are often overlooked instead of focusing on external issues such
, as military intervention against dictators. Furthermore, the United States’ action relies heavily on
the taxpayer’s money and the cost of its own citizens’ life through
military actions.
As critics of the United States’ actions and interference with other nations’ problems
state, the country already has internal issues it has to prioritize. I will argue that as the world’s
greatest superpower, the United States has the means and capability of successful intervention
against ruthless dictators who commit crimes and atrocities against its citizens.
Part 2: Ethical Argument
The United States have the world’s strongest military in the world. The American
dominance in the military realm equips the United States with the capability to take actions
against any dictators around the globe. With the projected annual budget of $750 billion in fiscal
year 2020, it accounts for 40% of the global military spending (Miller & O’Hanlon, 2019). With
its budget, the United States can carry out military interventions against dictators regardless if the
dictator has its military to deter any military actions. Military intervention is an effective tool for
foreign policy that also acts as deterrence for other nation leaders to omit committing human right
violations and atrocities against its citizens (Choi & James, 2016).
Part 3: Explanation and Defense
The ethical theory of utilitarianism aligns with the argument that the United States do
have a moral obligation to intervene, occupy or wage war against foreign nations ruled by
dictators who are carrying out atrocities on that nation’s citizen. Utilitarianism foundation is
based on its founder, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham presents that the action that offers the most
pleasure and the least amount pain has the greatest morally right option. He introduces the notion
that pleasure, and pain are able to be identified and measured (Thames, 2018). Additionally,
John Stuart Mill took Bentham’s theory and supplemented it to add a more precise theory. Mill
differentiated the definition of happiness, which was originally thought of as the
