Tutorial

Philosophy and Ethics Applied to Intelligence

Juiliana Geran Pilon

Recommended Reading: Fair Play: The Moral Dilemmas of Spying, James M. Olson.

1. Distinguishing ethics from epistemology – In what ways are true or false statements different from value statements?
"A is B" may be true or false, depending on whether, upon examination, A is found to be, indeed, B. (E.g.: "The weather is rainy" is true if it's pouring, but false if it's sunny and dry.) By contrast, if "A is B" is a normative statement, no similar examination is either possible or intended. "Security is good" may be understood to mean that being free of fear that we may be attacked or vandalized is a value sought by an individual or a group – which in turn is no longer a normative, or value statement but a descriptive one.
Discuss ways in which "Democracy is good" may be turned into a descriptive statement – or, rather, statements.
2. What is meant by "Action A is good"?
Action A should be performed whenever possible – it is unqualifiedly "good," or perhaps "good in itself." [E.g., the Golden Rule, and its formal/universal aspect.]
Are there any such actions in the context of intelligence?
Action A should be performed in most circumstances except when certain conditions (to be specified) may lead to undesirable or bad ends.
Discuss in what ways "Tell the truth" does – or does not – qualify (and explain why or why not; also, give specific examples illustrating each perspective, from the world of intelligence).
Action A may not necessarily be a good in itself but good as a means to something else, which is a good in itself. (Deontological vs. utilitarian – define.)
Discuss Chinese, Muslim and Marxist views of the obligation to deceive in warfare. (Specific sources will be provided by workshop leader.)
Action A may not be good for person (or group, e.g., nation) P but may be good for person (or group, e.g., nation) Q.
Compare moral relativism and, moral equivalence.
3. What constitutes a refutation of the statement that "Action A is good"?
Action A may be mistakenly considered to help achieve a desired goal G when it fact it does not.
Intelligence analysis should, ideally, seek to include more than assessments of immediate results stemming from an action or set of actions.
Action A may help a person or group to some extent, but it harms another person or group as well – perhaps even more, which introduces an additional relevant factor.
Such considerations should be part of the information provided by intelligence analysts to policy makers for their consideration as they make strategic and tactical decisions.
Action A may help in an immediate or apparent way but not in the long term, or not "in reality."
Long-term, not merely short-term, assessments should be encouraged in the intelligence community, bucking the trend of bureaucratic inertia.
Action A may lead to immediate advantages for person (or group, or nation) A, but to long-term disadvantages.
Intelligence personnel should be trained in matters of cultural, including linguistic and historical, information. Note the Iraq Study Report section on intelligence – to be provided by workshop leader.
4. Conclusion: Consequences of ignoring normative aspects of intelligence
Examples of both omission and comission.
Abu Ghraib: the event and its subsequent public diplomacy mishandling
What responsibilities do members of the media have to their country?
What stories are we failing to hear about? (see sample, below)

Juliana Geran Pilon, Ph.D., is Research Professor of Politics and Culture and Earhart Fellow at the Institute of World Politics. For over a decade, she was Vice President for Programs at the International Foundation for Election Systems; during the 1980s, she was a Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Pilon has taught at several colleges, including George Washington University and St. Mary's College of Maryland. Her many writings include books and articles on foreign affairs, philosophy, literature, and film.  Her latest book, Why America Is Such a Hard Sell: Beyond Pride and Prejudice, will be released January 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield. 

Why America Is Such a Hard Sell: Beyond Pride and Prejudice
Juliana Pilon, 2007

Why does America consistently receive such low ratings in opinion polls around the world? The answer, as Pilon explains, lies not just in America's overtly forceful actions but in the construction and presentation of its self-image. She analyses America's current efforts in public diplomacy and advises delivery of a more appealing self-portrait to the world.