Examining the Ethics of Weapon Sales to Nations Accused of War Crimes

This essay delves into the ethical considerations surrounding the sale of weapons by Australian manufacturers to countries accused of war crimes, specifically focusing on Saudi Arabia. It addresses the moral dilemma through the lenses of Utilitarianism and Kantianism, contrasting their approaches to determining right and wrong actions. The essay presents arguments for and against such sales, highlighting potential benefits like aiding in crime prevention and economic growth, versus the risks of destabilizing regions and violating human rights. It also explores the conflict between the utilitarian focus on maximizing happiness and the Kantian emphasis on duty and moral rules, ultimately questioning the ethical implications of prioritizing economic gain over potential human suffering. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments.

Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS 1
Business Ethics
Name
Institution

BUSINESS ETHICS 2
BUSINESS ETHICS
Q1
The united emirates and Saudi Arabia have led military coalition in Yemen which has
claimed lives of thousands of citizens in airstrikes, raped civilians, tortured detainees, and used
under age children as soldiers. Coalition forces headed by Saudi Arabia and supported by the
United States and other countries have also been charged of human rights violation by breaking
the law. Therefore, manufacturers in Australia should not sell fire arms to nations accused of war
crimes. Australian manufacturers should not sell firearms to nations that are prone to war crimes.
The federal government of Australia is under siege for giving a license to Canberra firm dealing
with weapons export that are destined to Saudi Arabia. The country has had constant claims of
human rights violation as part of the disputed conflict in bordering Yemen. The Australian
government is not confident that the weapons they are selling to Saudi Arabia will not be used in
Yemen to commit crimes ("Federal Government under fire over weapons export to Saudi
Arabia," 2019). Therefore, this is a threat to human life and may lead to constant conflict
between the two countries.
Q2
Utilitarianism and Kantianism have dissimilar methods of determining whether an action
is wrong and right. The first component of the Kantian theory explains that duty is the reason
that should drive an ethical action. Kant in his argument perceives human beings as moral agents
that use reasoning when making ethical decisions. Another in this theory is that people can settle
on morally straight decisions only if they are guided by duty and goodwill. Kantianism believe
that human life is valuable and since humans are the holders of rational life (Bagnoli, 2014).

BUSINESS ETHICS 3
Furthermore, human beings are rational and have the ability to behave rationally. Therefore, they
should not in any way be used for happiness or enjoyment of another person.
On the contrary, utilitarian’s believe that people should act in a way that they produce
happiness. The first key element that the theory addresses is that happiness or pleasure is the
main thing that has intrinsic value (Kahane, 2015). Mill addresses that human beings seem to
value beauty, health, and others than happiness and pleasure. Another element that Mill explains
is that actions are right if they produce happiness and wrong if they promote unhappiness.
Utilitarian emphasizes the importance of considering the potential consequences of actions. The
theory allows people to be used as mere objects which may lead to sacrificing the lives and
happiness of others for a greater good. According to philosopher Mill, if people find happiness or
joy in a decision, Mill regarded the action as ethical (Mill, 2016). More so, Mill states that
everyone’s happiness matters equally.
Q3
Australian manufacturers selling weapons to countries accused of war crime like
Saudi Arabia may help fight criminal activities. Acquiring these weapons will equip the police
forces with the necessary requirements and Intel to fight and stop the crimes. Utilitarianism
philosophy states that any human action depends upon its utility or value. For example,
Australian manufacturers selling weapons to war crime accused countries with an aim to fight
crime (Lustgarten, 2015). Additionally, the trade will be boosted in both parties involved hence
the growth of the economy. On the contrary, these weapons could destabilize the economy.
When weapons fall in the wrong hands, a lot of government development goals are set back.
There will be scarce medical care services due to the increased number of causalities due to war.

BUSINESS ETHICS 4
This differences among the neighboring nations will create conflicts because some states will
stop the trade on grounds of endangering human lives. According to Kantianism, the morality of
an action depends on whether rules are followed or not. The Australian manufactures may have
defied this philosophy since they are not confident whether the weapons will not be used for
criminal purposes (Woodard, 2013).

BUSINESS ETHICS 5
References
Bagnoli, C. (2014). Starting points: Kantian constructivism reassessed. Ratio Juris, 27(3), 311-
329.
Federal Government under fire over weapons export to Saudi Arabia. (2019, February 20).
Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-20/australian-firm-eos-weapons-
systems-bound-for-saudi-arabia/10825660
Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or
nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560.
Lustgarten, L. (2015). The Arms Trade Treaty: Achievements, Failings, Future. International &
Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(3), 569-600.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Woodard, C. (2013). The common structure of Kantianism and act-utilitarianism. Utilitas, 25(2),
246-265.