Deontology

To research the moral right- or wrong- ness of an act different ethical theories can be followed. This essay will use deontology to research the sale of surveillance tools by European companies to foreign governments. To accurately describe this also consequentialism is used to emphasize the differences in approach and outcome because deontology is best understood when comparing it with consequentialism.

Deontology is based on the thinking of Immanuel Kant, this essay tries to remain in this tradition. Deontology is also described as duty ethics and is a normative theory that is about the things we should do (Alexander & Moore, 2015; Guyer, 2004). One of the key elements within deontology is that no matter how good the consequences, certain choices are just morally wrong (Alexander & Moore, 2015; Guyer, 2004). Resulting in; that what makes a choice the right choice is that what is conform a moral norm. These norms need to be followed by all moral agents. For deontologist the ‘right’ is more important than the ‘good’. This means that an act can not be executed if it is not right even if it produces much ‘good’ (Alexander & Moore, 2015). This is in contrast with consequentialism whereby the focus is on maximizing the good; “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Sinnott- Armstrong, 2015). According to Kant the morality of an action is determined by will. A Good will can be achieved by following a moral duty (Shakil, n.d.). These moral laws consist out of different maxims that are needed to achieve the moral right and are in accordance with Kant’s three ‘Categorical Imperatives’ (Alexander & Moore, 2015; Guyer, 2004; Shakil, n.d.).

Before continuing with the duties of different agents, I feel the need to address the right- or wrong- ness of surveillance tools. As stated previously, surveillance tools are a part of life. Most countries use and have used forms of surveillance. These surveillance tools are needed to contribute to stability and depress troublemakers. These are tools to achieve [as believed by governments] one of the most crucial duties for governments to maintain stability and safety in its nation for its citizens. As mentioned in chapter 3 when people refer to their right and need for privacy I believe that they often use these terms if as they are the same. According to me privacy is not freedom, and it seems people mix these two things up. Freedom can only be enjoyed when freedom is guarded, this freedom can be enjoyed when stability of a nation is maintained and this stability of a nation can possibly only be maintained due to surveillance and control of people wanting to destroy this stability. However this moves away from the deontological tradition by thinking of its consequences. To rephrase it in a deontological sense would be; governments can monitor their civilians because it does not conflict Kant’s ‘Categorial Imperatives’. Kant argued the following in his quote regarding the governmental role;

“Under such a paternal government (imperium paternale), the subjects, as immature children who cannot distinguish what is truly useful or harmful to themselves, would be obliged to behave purely passively and to rely upon the judgement of the head of state as to how they ought to be happy, and upon his kindness in willing their happiness at all. Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism, i.e. a constitution which suspends the entire freedom of its subjects, who thenceforth have no rights whatsoever. .

(Kant’s Political Writings, 1970)

This can be read and explained in different ways. Against general state interference (privacy) or against state interference that harms freedom and neglects freedom of choice and thought (freedom). Since Kant uses the term freedom I argue this is also exactly what is meant by the statement, the state should not interfere with personal freedom, this is different than privacy.

Duties

The Duty of European Surveillance companies

Companies are developing and selling these different tools. To understand whether this is ‘right’ we need to understand the duty of these commercial parties. A commercial company’s duty in random order is among other things; to survive as a company, take good care of its employees, make profit and sell goods or services.

Based on European legislation plus what I believe is the general understanding of what a company should do. If we look at the duties from a meta-perspective, as something that should be applied to all agents, it can be stated that nobody should; employ children, use slaves or kill or imprison people based on European legislation. If we would approach this by consequentialist rules we should include the outcome of the actions. Meaning that the selling of these tools should benefit the greatest good for the greatest number and neglect the moral rightness of the action. However since this essay focusses on deontology the focus should just be on the duty these companies have and if it is not against Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperatives’.

The Duty of European Institutes

The European institutes have as companies also duties. These duties can include; provide for all european citizens food and water, healthcare and education. European institutes have the moral duty to protect their citizens against torture and killing. I believe the duties of the European institutions have a nationalistic/patriotic focus (Kant, 1970). “The only conceivable government for men who are capable of possessing rights, even if the ruler is benevolent, is not a paternal but a patrioticgovernment (imperium non paternale, sed patrioticum)”. The duty is to provide for it own citizens as parents do for their children.

Currently the European government forbids the export of surveillance tools to Syria and Iran (Reporters without borders, n.d.). Consequentialist use hypothetical imperatives to base their decisions on. This policy is based on the consequentialist approach by arguing that these nations cannot use these tools because they have and are likely to use these tools against their civilians. Leading to the imprisonment and dead of many civilians, more riots, war and instability. However, from a deontological perspective this is the wrong decision. The companies selling these tools should not be held responsible for the consequences of these actions by these foreign governments. This conclusion can only be made by stating that from a deontological perspective selling surveillance tools is morally right as demonstrated in the first paragraph of this chapter. It would be wrong from a deontologist approach to only forbid these tools for certain governments. It contradicts with the first ‘categorical imperative’ by Kant because European governments do not want to forbid these tools and it is hereby not following an universal law (McCormick, n.d.) .

Libertarian Deontology

If the actions and duties of the European agents discussed are analyzed close resembles with libertarianism can be found. Libertarian deontology can be applied when freedom is a central will that should be in the core of different maxims (Vallentyne & van der Vossen, 2014). A core rule within this theory is the need to follow the non-aggression theory [NAP]. NAP is an ethical and moral principle that aims at avoiding conflict between individuals (Vallentyne & van der Vossen, 2014; Non-aggression principle, n.d.). NAP is against all forms of aggression that is in conflict with free will and the interference with the right to self-determination (Wikia). Meaning governments and companies cannot interfere with the free will of humans and effect there self-determination. If this specific theory is applied to whether or not European surveillance companies can sell their product to foreign governments the answer again is; yes. Because from this perspective the selling of surveillance tools does not interfere with the free will of people. It is only when a ‘hypothetical imperative’ is applied that this will cause problems, but since this only happens with the use of a consequentialist approach no objection can be found in selling surveillance tools to these foreign governments.

Problems of Surveillance Tools

From a consequentialist perspective it can be argued that selling surveillance tools is wrong because of the greater wrong than good. However such claim cannot be made by deontologist. They simply focus of whether an action is morally right. The moral rightness of the selling of surveillance tools by European companies is discussed in the previous paragraphs. Both from the traditional ‘Kantian deontological’ approach as from the ‘libertarian deontological’ approach no objections are found in selling these goods.

One main objection in selling these surveillance tools can be cultural arguments of differences in the understanding of moral right and wrong as could be analyzed by e.g. cultural relativism. If the deontologist way of thinking is refuted, it is a strong argument to take these cultural differences in consideration. Because due to differences in culture it is very likely that products can be perceived and used differently and conflict with European moral rightness. From a consequentialist perspective it is very likely that this can be a major influence on the judgement of the greater good of an action. Deontology however can not use such hypothetical imperative as; if these tools are used by other cultures then they will be used different than is according our moral right.

Therefore deontology lets us only look at our own actions and the moral rightness of it. As earlier concluded, deontology lets European companies sell their tools to foreign nations because no moral wrongness is done by this. Both the duties of these companies as the duties of European governments are not at stake and are fulfilled when selling these goods.

From a personal perspective I see the possible negative effects as is shown in my previous research on the surveillance and profiling of LGBTIs (van der Stelt, 2015). However this can only be shown when philosophical theories are applied that have more eye for the possible consequences to single individuals and minorities. I personally belief that these surveillance tools are used to harm the innocent, and this is according to me unethical behavior. Especially, when the tools are used to prevent personal freedom. This is not only against Kant’s vision of a governmental duty but also against mine. Hence, my belief that the duty of a government is to provide freedom of choice and thought. Meaning that in my believe individuals should not be surveilled, monitored and possibly be arrested as a result from having different beliefs than the majority. At the same time I understand why governments need to follow their duty to prevent unrest. This means if activists or oppositions are treating with a coup, I understand the urge for governments to use surveillance tools to track these individuals. I therefore make a distinction between using surveillance tools against people with different beliefs and practices [e.g. religion and sexual preferences] and using surveillance tools against troublemakers that might harm the stability of a nation. This division is highly debatable and leaves room for more discussion in a possible next essay. The point I however want to make with this example is that surveillance tools are only allowed when the stability of a nation is at stake. That surveillance tools should never be used for governments to parade their own beliefs and impose them on others.

Conclusion

Deontology has showed us that the sale of surveillance tools by European companies cannot be judged as ethically wrong. This applies to both Kantian deontology as libertarian deontology. It is only when you start using hypothetical imperatives as the consequentialist do that the selling of surveillance tools becomes problematic. If these tools are used by other governments then they will be used in a manner that is against our moral right [or against Kant’s Imperatives]. When following Kant’s Categorical Imperatives it shows that European companies that are selling surveillance tools obey Kant’s “rules”. It is only when we start looking at other agents such as the governments using the surveillance tools that this becomes problematic. However from a deontological perspective it is not aloud to think in hypothetical imperatives, meaning only the actions of the companies themselves can be judged.

The only away to avoid the misuse of these surveillance tools is by either following a different ethical theory then deontology or applying it further in the chain of action. The ones producing and selling the surveillance tools are not doing any moral harm from a deontological perspective. It is only when the governments in question use these surveillance tools in unethical manners against their civilians that the problem occurs. This does not mean European surveillance companies do not have a responsibility in my opinion but according to the deontology theory there is no harm in selling these surveillance tools to foreign governments.