Ethics of Conspiracy Theorizing Essay

In the consideration of this stress conspiracies provide be defined where a proposed explanation E is a crew system if and only if E is a proposed causative explanation of an answer (or rotary of events) which postulates secret plans and actions on the division of the concourse and E conflicts with the appointed story (or stories) of the equivalent historical events.In this pillow slip the official story will be defined where an explanation of an event E is an official story if and only if the explanation is a possible action endorsed in a conventionally recognized means by an psyche or institution that bears the relevant legal responsibility for events of type E, and for providing knowledge to the human beings rough them. In virtually personas conspiracies ar incorruptly allowable however usually they be the im promoteion of nefarious motivations on the spark of the conspirators.In this essay I will use the examples of the Watergate dirt and the family 1 1 terrorist attacks to explain how in this respect confederacy theorizing is much practically morally permissible collectable to the sightly motivations of the confederation theorizers and the benefits conclave theorizing lends to our society. It is unc let outh knowledge that presidencys and semipolitical bodies around the world make retrieve engaged in conspiracies. A come up known example of this is the Watergate scandal which occurred during the presidency of Richard Nixon.The Watergate scandal took place in the Watergate complex in Washington DC on the 17th of July 1972. The complex was the site of the Democratic National Committee headquarters where five men were found breaking and entering. All the men were committed to President Nixons Committee to Re-elect the President. This prompted an investigation which dis overlayed many more illegal activities connected to President Nixons staff including campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins , improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping, and a laundered slush memory used to pay those who conducted these operations.In this case the federation was indeed the result of nefarious motivations on the part of President Nixon and his staff. While many and mayhap most conspiracies atomic number 18 the result of similar motivations not all conspiracies ar malevolent. For instance a confederacy may (though perhaps not legally) be beneficent when the conspirators are acting in a way to nurse the interests of the people. Reasons for this could be to prevent a counterproductive panic caused by reveal their plans before they are ready.Another federation that would be both benevolent and responsible on behalf of the regimen would be conspiring to keep their nation unintentional of particular military actions in prepare to protect both the soldiers and the universe that they govern. This would be the most responsible action on behalf of the government as it is their role to pro tect the people as best they can, in this case by way of a cabal. Although it is conceivable that there are virtually benevolent conspiracies where conspirators are try to benefit society I think back it holds true that the majority of conspiracies are caused by conspirators with nefarious intentions.It is obvious from conspiracies and cover ups like the Watergate scandal that conspiracies do take place (if not commonly) and so it follows that legitimately the existence of conspiracies altogether cannot be denied and furthermore it is irrational to discredit the existence of confederation theories. With this in mind it seems both reasonable and logical to conclude that faction theorizing is a rational and possibly near part of society.Steve Clarke supports this in Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing (2002) by proposing that the confederation idealogue challenges us to improve our social explanations whereby he means that conspiracy theorists are valuable to socie ty as their existence pressures epistemic authorities much(prenominal) as the government to be advertent in its practices and to ensure their ventures are unploughed above board. Clarke too reminds us that occasionally the conspiracy theorist identifies a genuine conspiracy. In contrast to Clarke, critics of conspiracy theorizing claim theorists cause excitement amongst society as they damage the trust between governments and their citizens. This is due to the way in which conspiracy theories much portray the government and government officials as being nefarious and underhanded in their dealings thus change the trust between society and the government. Similarly critics claim that conspiracy theorists make out unrest amongst society by fostering negative beliefs near the government and the causes of historical events.Critics of conspiracy theorizing propose that unwarranted conspiracy theories have the authority to cause undesirable and harmful results. This is illustrate d well by Mark Fenster in Conspiracy Theories Secrecy and Power in American Culture (2008) where he postulates that left critics argue that proper political analysis leads directly to rough-and-ready political occupation. Identifying both the general and historically specific economic and political structures that dominate enables activists to organize protests strategically and to build collective, alternative institutions in order to effect real social change.Conspiracy hypothesis, on the other hand, each misattributes dominance to individuals, or simplistically places the blame for the ills of the world on individuals rather than on underlying, structural causes. As a result, it cannot lead to effective political activity rather, it leads to harmful scapegoating or it misleads activists into thinking that merely removing an individual or a secret group will transform society. Arguments such(prenominal) as this are the cause of moral debate around conspiracy theorizing.The at tacks on the opposite number Towers, the 7 World portion out Centre building and the Pentagon in refreshing York City and Washington D. C in America on family the 11th 2001 became a catalyst for many highly publicized conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories argue against the official story which states that the attacks were carried out solely by Al-Qaeda -a militant Islamic organization headed by Osama Bin Laden. The official story proposes that four commercial passenger airlines were hijacked by 19 members of Al-Qaeda. ii planes, American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were hijacked and flown in a suicide mission into the north and south towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City.Both of these towers collapsed deep down 2 hours due to structural damage caused by fires from the initial plane crash. The third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was flown into the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the Pentagon in Arlin gton County, Virginia. This caused parts of the western side of the pentagon to collapse. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was intend to be flown into the Capitol of the United States, Washington D. C but instead crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers attempted to gain control of the plane. genius of the most noteworthy conspiracy theories regarding the family line 11 attacks states that the collapse of the meet Towers and 7 World Trade Center was caused by controlled demolition on the behalf of the United States government as opposed to the structural damage caused by fire which was quoted in the official story. Many physicists, architects and other intellectuals argue that the strike from the aircraft and the resulting fires could not have antagonizeed the buildings to the extent which could cause them to completely collapse.Instead, conspiracy theorists posit that explosives were installed in the building on behalf of the government prior to the atta cks. harmonize to conspiracy theorists there is much errant data to support this such as accounts of people hearing explosions in the lobby while trying to escape the building. High profile conspiracy such as those pertaining to the family line 11 terrorist attacks serve the well-being of society. They help to regulate the governments actions.Conspiracy theories are invaluable in keeping an honest government that is pressured to act within the law -especially if the government is aware that their citizens may question the official story. Governments have the capability to be respected leaders for the people or sources of harm, in a society where conspiracy theories have the ability to become such widespread public knowledge (such as the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks) they ensure that the government remains playacting for the citizens as they are prepared to be scrutinized.In this way conspiracy theorizing is extremely beneficial to society whic h makes conspiracy theorizing morally justifiable. Another way in which conspiracy theorizing is beneficial to society is the how it encourages citizens to think for themselves in a way that differently they may not. Conspiracy theorizing allows individuals to challenge the official story rather than senselessly believing stories that have been spoon fed to them by the relevant epistemic authorities and the media.Conspiracy theorizing also offers alternative explanations than the official stories such as arguments based on facts to consider rather than the stories spoon fed to them by the government. The media is an definitive tool for the conspiracy theorist, in most western countries the press has liberty to publish conspiracy theories and there are even some magazines such as the Sceptic magazine which is available worldwide. The freedom of the media back up the governments awareness that they could very publicly be caught out in a conspiracy.Being caught amongst a conspiracy would be tragic for any popular government since they would lose so much public support which is necessity as one of the most important things to them is being re-elected. Because governments need public support so much they would indeed be very careful about the conspiracies attempted under their power. While most conspiracies are prompted by nefarious motivations the same is not true for conspiracy theories. I believe the key to the morality of either are the intentions of the conspirators or the theorists, regardless of the outcome.The vary morality of conspiracy theorizing and even conspiracies themselves can be explained by the article of faith of double effect. This philosophical system states that an action that results in harm is morally permissible if it is the side effect of a morally adept initiative. The doctrine proposes that if doing something intend to be morally good has a morally bad moment as a side-effect wherefore it is ethically permissible on the teach that the morally bad side-effect wasnt intended even if it was foreseen to probably happen.An important feature of the doctrine states that the good result must be brought about independent of the bad one, the bad result must not be the means to the good result. To assist in helping my point about the difference in moral permissibility I will use the succeeding(a) hypothetical example There is a large munitions factory set to be bombed by a wedge shape fly. The pilot knows the munitions factory is next to an orphanage and that as a result of bombing the munitions factory a collateral of 2,000 civilian casualties are predicted.However bombing the munitions factory will defeat the enemy and protect other lives. I contend that the actions of the bomber may be morally permissible. However, if I alter the case just slightly A bomber pilot is set to bomb a munitions factory. The pilot knows that the munitions factory is next to an orphanage and that 2,000 civilian casualties are predi cted. In fact, bombing the munitions factory is the fastest and easiest way to cause such a number of casualties and this is why the bomber has chosen to bomb the factory.This will weaken the enemys esolve with the side-effect of getting rid of their munitions factory. I contend that in this instance the bombers action is obviously morally impermissible. though this example seems unrelated to conspiracies and conspiracy theorizing it illustrates how the motivation behind an action deems its military position of morality. In the case of conspiracy theorizing, a moral conspiracy theory would be one where the theorist truly believes they have uncovered a nefarious conspiracy and that by exposing it to the public they would be greatly benefitting society.The doctrine of double effect would apply for instance in the following two cases In the first scenario Mandy notices lots of errant data regarding actions made by the government. Adding this data up Mandy believes she has unravelled a nefarious and underhanded scheme by government officials. Mandy truly believes that citizens ought to be aware of this conspiracy and that publicizing her conspiracy theory is in societys best interest. Mandy knows that her theory negatively implicates many government officials and could be very harmful if she turns out to be victimize.In this case, regardless of whether or not Mandys claims turn out to be true her initial motivations were for the good of society. This is similar to the first scenario of the pilot bombing the munitions factory in that the bad result is just a side-effect of the morally good intention. I propose that in this way conspiracy theorizing can be morally just and in the cases where the theorist is turn up correct society is reminded of the benefits of conspiracy theorizing. In the second case Mandy, who has been shoot from her position in government administration notices the same errant data.Mandy tie in this data together and formulates a conspirac y theory which negatively implicates her prior superiors. While Mandy in this scenario may also have the intentions of publicizing her conspiracy theory in order to make people aware of a nefarious scheme on the part of the government, she is still motivated by the thought of harming the reputation of her previous superiors. In this case the doctrine states that Mandys actions were morally wrong as the morally wrong result was not a side effect of the morally good action. Rather, the morally wrong result of harming her previous superiors was one f the two intended concequences so in this case conspiracy theorizing would be morally wrong.Even though the two scenarios may have the same consequence it is the difference in motivation that alters the moral permissibility. I postulate that this is the same for all conspiracy theories, this means that when motivated by the intention to benefit society conspiracy theorizing is morally permissible. In the case of the September 11 terrorist attacks the moral permissibility of conspiracy theories surrounding the event depend on the intentions of the conspiracy theorists.If the intentions of the theorist are to benefit society by making us aware of a nefarious conspiracy surrounding the government of the United States then I propose that conspiracy theorizing would be morally justifiable. Though the United States government is portrayed to be nefarious and underhanded in this conspiracy theory if this is not the intended result of the conspiracy theorist but a negative side-effect brought about by the good action then conspiracy theorizing in this instance would remain morally justified.However, if the intention of the conspiracy theorist was to undermine the government by weakening the trust between them and their citizens then I conclude that conspiracy theorizing for this purpose (despite any morally good side-effects) is morally unjust. As I have shown clearly in my essay there are many situations in which conspiracy theorizing is a moral good. It is obvious that conspiracy theorizing is beneficial to our society as it pressures the government to work for the well-being of their citizens as they are prepared to be scrutinized.Conspiracy theorizing is also morally justified by the benefits it lends to individuals freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. As I have explained in this essay, the doctrine of double effect illustrates how the moral permissibility of conspiracy theorizing often rests upon each conspiracy theorists motivations. I conclude that while most conspiracies are the results of nefarious motivations the same is not true for conspiracy theorizing, instead conspiracy theorists are often motivated to benefit society in some way or another and in these cases their conspiracy theorizing is morally justifiable.