Ethics of Security Measures in the Netherlands

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Ethical Dilemma
Utilism Ethics: Jeremy Bentham
Duty Ethics: Immanuel Kant
Virtue Ethics: Aristotle
References

In the current state of affairs, the Netherlands takes all kinds of measures to increase its security. Of such strategies is the reestablishment of the Intelligence and Security Services Act. When this particular legislation is renewed, the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and the Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) will be able to commandeer substantial quantities of internet traffic. As such, the act grants the AIVD and MIVD additional mechanisms to assure the safety of Netherlands. Key changes to the law include the so-called dragnet which may be used to catch mass communications, and all computerized devices may be hacked. Additionally, a confidential DNA database may be setup that is accessible to the public, and the collated information may be shared with foreign intelligence services without any investigation.

The aforesaid dragnet derives its name from the fact that it is not an objective action. For instance when an individual is suspected to be involved in a breach of security, the dragnet can be used to intercept all communication in his surroundings, including that of the innocent neighbors. However, as the AIVD and MIVD use resources to check imminent threats to the democratic legal order, it remains an important issue that security services are put under supervision to curtail misuse of financial resources. Otherwise, there are higher chances of the public feeling that they cannot express themselves willfully, and this will infringe on the basic right to privacy of citizens.

With regard to supervision, firstly, the Minister for Security and Justice must approve the request of the security services. Afterwards, an assessment committee (TIB) checks the legality of such an application and if deemed unlawful then it is rejected. Notably, independence of TIB is guaranteed because it is comprised of three-people who are appointed in consultation of the National Ombudsman, the Vice-President of the Council of State and the President of the Supreme Court.

Moreover, there will be an additional review which will be performed the existing supervisor which is the Supervisory Commission for the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD). In a case whereby CTIVD decides that a security request is incorrect, it may conduct its investigations and report the findings to the legislature. Parliament will then report its findings back to the TIB which is the chief regulator. Only if CTIVD opens an inquiry in response to a citizen’s complaint will it be able to give a binding opinion. Nonetheless, citizens may lodge a complaint when their information has been tapped.

Ethical Dilemma

The case of security measures in the Netherlands poses a great ethical dilemma especially to the authorities who may be tasked with the responsibility of securing the nation. This is because there is difficulty in choosing the best option between all the available choices to the Minister of Security and Justice, Ferdinand Grapperhaus who approves or rejects the request of security services. As the minister for both security and justice, Grapperhaus has either to accept a request which might infringe on the rights of citizens or disallow the application therefore exposing the same nationals to security threats. The clash arises as it is neither wrong nor right to intercept information of those whom he is constitutionally mandated to secure and at the same time trampling on their rights as a justice minister. From the second order ethics, it is also obscure as to why accepting the security requests might be immoral or not and if that is the case then the reasons for declaring it unethical or otherwise. Clearly, this is a moral dilemma because either the choices made by Grapperhaus will automatically raise some ethical questions.

Utilism Ethics: Jeremy Bentham

In consideration of the dilemma faced by Grapperhaus, one can apply ethical current such as Utilism. The ethical proposition of Utilism otherwise referred to as Utilitarianism was formulated by a remarkable English legal theorist, Jeremy Bentham. Born in 1748, Bentham went to University of Oxford at the age of twelve and later graduated when he was fifteen (Kernohan, 2020). He then studied law and was admitted to the bar at the age of nineteen. Due to his more involvement with the reform of English judicial system, Bentham never actually practiced law. Bentham’s assessment of the English legal system was that the establishment was cumbersome and vague in its theory and processes as well as inhumane and bigoted in its effects (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017). As a constitutional theorist than he was a philosopher, Bentham studied constitutions and drew some for the newly established nations. Interestingly, his recommendations were based on the belief that nature placed human beings under the influence of two masters of pain and pleasure. Therefore, his doctrines of pleasure became the premises of Utilism.

Indeed, Utilism has affected various decisions as it is one of the elements in contemporary moral thinking. At the core of the theory is the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP). In summary, the conjecture poses that an action is right if inclined to augment happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to create unhappiness or pain to all the concerned parties. Utilism is an example of consequentialism because it hypothesizes that actions and decisions should be assessed based on the consequences (Mulgan, 2020). As is its nature, the postulation further contends that an individual ought to maximize on happiness or pleasure to minimize unhappiness or anguish. Utilism proposes that human actions should be determined by rules which if by and large followed, would lead to the greatest happiness (Mulgan, 2020). As such, the Bentham’s ethical theory of Utilism is based on analysis of happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain.

In analyzing the best course of action to take, Grapperhaus has two policy options he has to choose from. The first option is to accept AIVD and MIVD requests to intercept communications of the citizens as they are being secured. The second one is to reject the security services application and protect the citizens’ liberties while violating the oath he took as a security minister. Importantly, the parties who may experience negative or positive utility by either of Grapperhaus’ decision will be the citizens of Netherland. The citizens can further be sub grouped into the children and youths, middle aged and the aged. The estimates of the subpopulations are distributed as follows, 5 million youth, 8 million middle-aged individuals, and 4 million aged individuals. With the information, hedonistic calculus can be applied to the dilemma of Minister Grapperhaus.

For Grapperhaus to make an effective decision concerning his dilemma, he proceeds as follows. He makes a substantiated utility estimate of pleasure and pain with values between 1 and 10, with the latter being assigned a value with a negative sign and 0 if there is indifference. By multiplying the number of subpopulations of the Dutch by the utility effects and adding the results for each subpopulation, he shall have attained a utility value for either of his options. After comparing the utility values and discerning which of the two is higher, principle of Utilism allows for choice of the option with greatest value as the best option.

Duty Ethics: Immanuel Kant

Another moral concept that can help in analyzing the dilemma in which Grapperhaus has found himself in is the categorical imperative that is the basis of Kantianism. Immanuel Kant was a great German philosopher who was born in 1724 and died in 1804. Part of Kant’s greatness lies in the way he established and refined the notion of the moral life in order to provide logical answers to life problems. In one of his celebrated work, Kant aimed to lay out the fundamental rational character of moral thought and action (Ward, 2019). He pointed out that however wealthy an individual may be, such gifts and talents can be abused. Kant also acknowledges that however careful people plan their actions, it proves a daunting task to predict their outcomes. Through his creation of categorical imperatives (CIs), Kant had presented people with rational rules of action considering those desires themselves are to be evaluated.

The Kantian theory of CIs is appealing to moral propositions because the rationality of its recommendation is a function of its truth. Accordingly, the categorical imperatives do not issue commands to perform particular moral obligations (Vaughn, 2019). In his own assessment, Kant hypothesized that the imperatives were not mere commands but rather abbreviations that depended upon the goals to be fulfilled (Shafer-Landau, 2020). CIs are characterized by universality because all people by virtue of rationality are supposed to act in the same way. Moreover, CIs are impartial as people’s biases are guided by their respect for dignity and autonomy and not human biases. In consequence, the CIs provide a formulation by which to apply human reason to determine the rational action to take.

When the case of Netherland’s Minister of Security and Justice is evaluated, the first plan under CI would be to propose a course of action to take with regards to either of the two options. For any decision taken, there must be a maxim for it. The maxims which should be considered either emanate from the oath he took as a Holland minister or the job descriptions of his position or even the constitution. It should therefore be noted that the rule which is applied here is not directly derived from constitution or the letter of appointment of Grapperhaus but the documents act only as guidelines. Again, the maxim used for choosing the preferred action is analyzed to ascertain whether it can fit in the system of moral principles of making such decisions (Geirsson and Holmgren, 2018). The next procedure should be to check if there is a clash between other moral laws and other guidelines of the public servant’s behavior. A conflict arising from the aforementioned immediate procedure annuls the option and the process is started over again with a different choice.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle

Virtue ethics was a philosophy that was developed by Aristotle and other Greek thinkers. Aristotle lived between 384 B.C. and 322 B.C. and made a useful contribution to the study of philosophy. Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics is one of the most incomprehensible of all works in history (Burnor & Raley, 2017). He started as Plato’s student and later on came up with the ethics to summarize the field of study.

An examination of the case of Grapperhaus through the Aristotelian philosophy would require that a lot of focus is made on the goal of the security and justice ministry and the virtues of good workmanship. Grapperhaus should formulate the objective of his ministry with aims such as protecting the Dutch nationals upholding justice and liberties of the citizens as enshrined in the constitution. The values that are also to be included in this case are accountability, service delivery, and respect for the rule of law (Thompson, 2019). The goals are arranged then in order of importance, for instance the values that are attached to the security and justice of Netherlands should top Grapperhaus’ list.

Justice step is important in virtue ethics because it is regarded as the greatest of the all the values. When inventory is made of all the parties that are involved in Grapperhaus case, it is found that the citizens would form the most majority. The interests of the Dutch are then set against the values of accountability, respect for rule of law, and service delivery. The specific interest of the nationals in this case would be the constitutional right of privacy and right to protection against any form of aggression. If the interests of all the parties involved are in conflict with the set values, then the option is not the best.

At measure stage the degree and type of emotions is what is critically assessed and the extremes of such feelings. Subsequently, the condition step takes effect on the case and the Grapperhaus looks for that particular goal that he has to pursue in his ministerial duty. In particular, he looks at ways of sharing the pain and burden equally with the citizens with regards to any of his choices. The last procedure of courage is followed; the step in which fighting any form of fear that may come from his preferred choice is undertaken (Van Zyl, 2018). Having fought any form of fear, Grapperhaus then thinks of anyone he admires in his life and from the person he may get inspiration to enable him settle on a choice.

On reflection, I would choose to approve the applications by AIVD and MIVD and make them intercept large quantities of internet traffic if that is what can keep the Dutch safe. My reasons are based on the three ethical currents of Bentham’s, Kant’s and Aristotle’s. Application of Utilism using felicific calculus in this case would give two options. Firstly, I will have to accept the requests of security services to commandeer the internet usage and therefore increase the security of the Dutch. This will involve a trade-off between the rights of privacy for citizens and their security as they have to be protected first to be guaranteed those rights.

Through assessment of the case using CIs theory, I will still allow the interception of large amounts of data using the security operatives. The reason remains to be the fact that I will do a trade-off between the rights of the citizens including some criminals amongst them and their security. Undeniably, using the principle of respect for autonomy would pick the second option. Similarly, the virtue ethics would make me settle on security first because the law allows innocents citizens whose information has been tapped to lodge their complaints.

References

Burnor, R., & Raley, Y. (2017). Ethical choices: An introduction to moral philosophy with cases (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Geirsson, H., & Holmgren, M. (Eds.). (2018). Ethical theory: A concise anthology (3rd ed.). Ontario: Broadview Press.

Kernohan, A. (2020). Ethical reasoning: Theory and application. Ontario: Broadview Press

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Mulgan, T. (2020). Utilitarianism (Elements of Ethics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2020). The Ethical life: Fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, M. (2019). Ethical theory: Access for students series (4th ed.). London: Hodder Education.

Van Zyl, L. (2018). Virtue ethics: A contemporary introduction. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Vaughn, L. (2019). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning, theory, and contemporary issues (5th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Ward, K. (2019). The development of Kant’s view of ethics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Click Here To Order Now!