Ethical Impacts
The Moral Dilemma
With great power often comes great responsibility. With said great responsibility many ethical choices arise where the right choice is to be made. It is difficult to arrive at the correct choice in a moral dilemma, however, there are important factors to consider. (Mainly relating to the use of biological weapons)
-
Civilian casualties
-
Military casualties
-
Legality
-
Affected infrastructure
-
Overall loss of life
-
Damage to ecosystems
-
Unforeseen issues
-
Loss of biodiversity
-
Economic impacts
-
Long-term impacts
-
Morals/Values
-
Loss of resources
-
Social impacts
It is important to consider all the aforementioned factors as well as different perspectives to gain all the context and information. Knowing the consequences of one's own actions and the morality of said actions are critical when justifying a verdict to a moral dilemma. While there is no clear-cut way to justify the use of biological weapons it is important to look back at history as a reference to make the correct choice such as using the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as a reference point.
As previously mentioned in our social impacts page, biological weapons have the potential to wreak havoc on society by separating people through quarantine. Furthermore, biological warfare can deliver cruel and unusual deaths which can be slow and painful. It is important to consider that if a biological agent were to develop into a superbug many organisms, including humans, face the threat of extinction. Biological warfare can also be considered unethical as it illegal for various reasons in many countries. However, beyond the loss of life, revenue and legal issues, biological warfare can be morally justified.
While no full-scale war in modern history has been fought with biological agents, partly due to peace treaties, there exist legitimate advantages to using biological weapons in war. For example, The United States of America decided to use the atomic bomb to save more lives overall. With the mindset of saving more lives, it is possible that a potent yet non-lethal biological agent can be used to save more lives overall and even minimize damage to the economy and biodiversity. However, pathogens may develop dealy characteristics while toxins may difficult to remove, yet genetic engineering may account for these issues. The use of biological weapons is difficult to justify, but weapons need not be weapons but instead, tools to develop new innovations. Nevertheless, biological warfare is used to intentionally hurt others to achieve some sort of purpose justified for the greater good of society.
There are many ethical systems in place which justify a decision to a moral dilemma by outweighing pros and cons, by giving the most benefit to all, by giving the most benefit to oneself or by giving the most benefit to a certain party. The right decision is guided a strong sense of justice and a good moral compass to show the correct choice. Nonetheless, one must consider all the information, consequences and be willing to live their decision to justify the use of biological weapons in order to be just. At Biological Warfare Survival, we believe that alternative peaceful approaches are always come first over drastic measures.