Biological Warfare Essay Example

and duty to serve their own interests, making its meaning ambiguous. Kant refers to one's moral obligation as categorical imperative, providing the foundation for people's actions. On the other hand, Aristotle believes that a morally upright individual will inherently know how to respond in any given situation.

During war, Mill's concept of Utilitarianism serves to justify the purpose of engaging in warfare. However, the presence of war necessitates changes in terminology as rational beings enforce moral principles. Therefore, without humans, moral laws would not exist, ultimately leading to the attribution of meaning to words by a collective group of individuals.

These individuals possess significant power to dictate what something currently means or should mean in society. Biological warfare has historically been employed in warfare. During the later stages of the French and Indian Wars (1689-1763), it is believed that a British military officer provided blankets infected with smallpox germs to Native Americans, resulting in their contraction of the often deadly disease (“Biological warfare”). Meanwhile, German agents infected horses, mules, and cattle of Americans with anthrax as they embarked on their journey to join their allies in 1915. By 1943, the United States had procured ample quantities of botulinum toxin and anthrax as a means of unlimited retaliation if the German forces were to first utilize biological agents (“Biological Warfare”).

In 1970, there were concerns that the USSR and its allies were utilizing "yellow rain" (trichothecene mycotoxins) while conducting campaigns in other countries such as Laos, Cambodia, and Afghanistan ("Biological Warfare Agents"). Military scientists during the Cold War saw the potential use of biological warfare in a different way as they believed they could exploit its capacity for harm

(Novak). This led to significant advancements in technology and science. The recent anthrax attack in the United States in 2001 served as a demonstration of this progress.

In the United States, there were incidents where powdered anthrax was mailed to the media and government offices, resulting in four deaths. It was suspected that the anthrax came from a government facility involved in testing biological agents ("Biological Warfare"). These incidents suggest that people often use biological agents to attack their enemies or specific targets in a cunning manner. Some individuals even resort to biological warfare as a means of conveying a message. As an example, the Rajhneeshees contaminated salad bars with Salmonella Typhimurium in an attempt to influence local elections in The Dalles, Oregon (Kortepeter and Parker). Nevertheless, rogue states stockpile biological agents not only for their own security but also to exert leverage over other nations. The possession of these biological agents allows them to project a more assertive position, despite their lack of actual power and control over other countries.

Additionally, the United States is concerned about financially constrained rogue states potentially using biological warfare. This type of warfare is often called the "poor man's nuke," and involves obtaining easily accessible biological agents under the guise of legitimate medical or bacteriological research. Moreover, there is a potential situation where terrorist groups aiming to engage in this form of warfare could receive support from these rogue states.

According to Moran, the U.S. has released a list of nations that support terrorist groups, including Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. It is concerning that five of these countries also have programs for developing biological weapons: Iraq, Iran, Libya,

North Korea, and Syria. The use of such warfare can lead to widespread destruction because of the lethal nature of biological agents. Kortepeter and Parker explain that anthrax and smallpox are among the most dangerous agents in terms of causing extensive casualties and disrupting society.

The risk stems from the fact that anthrax and smallpox can be readily dispersed through aerosol and produced in large quantities. The utilization of either agent would result in significant psychological impact on the population, potentially inducing widespread panic. This is due to the agents' capability to trigger extensive disease outbreaks, as evidenced by their historical use. It should be acknowledged that prompt detection of both diseases is likely to be delayed, and there are limited supplies of vaccines for either condition.

Biological warfare possesses the capability to cause considerable damage and provoke a chaotic response. This harm encompasses not only the devastation of economic advancement and stability but also the potential for ceasing economic activity and necessitating a substantial recovery period. The attractiveness of biological warfare stems from its capacity to inflict immense damage without incurring excessive expenses.

Biological agents are easily accessible and inexpensive to produce as they are naturally present in our surroundings. Anthrax spores, for example, can endure in soil for up to fifty years and can be obtained from infected animal carcasses. Additionally, spores can be found in the feces of infected animals (Fishbein).

Biological agents have the advantage of easy transportation and can be moved from one place to another without difficulty (DaSilva). Furthermore, these agents possess characteristics such as invisibility and virtual weightlessness, which make them challenging to detect (DaSilva). Additionally, viruses and other pathogens that serve

as biological agents can be concealed easily due to their dual-use nature – they can be used for both legal and illegal purposes ("Advantages of Using..."). Nevertheless, engaging in this process and practice is not as straightforward as it seems.

Acquiring, handling, and dispersing dangerous biologic agents in quantities that could cause widespread disease outbreaks is a difficult task. It is challenging to properly isolate, culture, contain, and deliver biological agents for use as weapons. The containment of these agents is particularly arduous. However, two treaties have been established to address the proper containment of biological weapons: the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ("Bioterror FAQ", "Biological Warfare").

The use and acquisition of germ weapons are prohibited by treaties (Smithson). Treaties are more effective than norms in enforcing rules because they have a tangible quality that norms lack (Smithson). Therefore, if a country violates a treaty, their signature on the treaty can serve as evidence. However, it seems that during war, all established rules, obligations, and moral conduct in society are disregarded. This is because in the pursuit of victory, any methods are deemed justified to achieve it quickly and efficiently (Moseley). It can also be argued that morality ceases to exist in the state of war. In war, the usual societal norms and principles are set aside, and the principle of "to each his own" is applied (Moseley).

The deployment of biological weapons during warfare, despite aiming for triumph, frequently yields adverse outcomes. It breaches global legislation and inflicts needless suffering upon military personnel. Furthermore, these arms lack the ability to differentiate between civilians and soldiers, thereby raising moral concerns regarding their

utilization.

According to "Ethical and Legal Considerations," our ethical responsibilities are determined by how our actions affect others. Since biological warfare causes harm to a significant number of individuals, including innocent civilians, it is an unethical method for resolving conflicts. It is unrealistic to believe that non-combatants are not involved or affected by war casualties. By applying Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to the concept of war, it can be concluded that war in general lacks moral acceptability. The harmful consequences of war are widely acknowledged. Even with good intentions, the negative outcomes associated with war classify the act itself as morally unjust.

According to Kant's definition of ulterior motive, an act is deemed good if it has no foreseeable negative consequence and the intention is good. Similarly, engaging in war for what seems like a just cause may actually be bad. To achieve goodness, something must spring from a desire to do good without expecting any reward or benefit. However, this does not apply to biological warfare because people engage in this dangerous act for the desired reward or benefit as the final outcome.

The underlying intention also encompasses the perspective of regarding humanity, including oneself and others, as valuable in its own right rather than a mere tool. This notion is highlighted by the idea of goodwill, which is linked to Kant and involves performing acts of kindness regardless of the result. However, in relation to biological warfare, this principle is not consistently upheld. In times of war, the definition of goodwill becomes hazy as the objective is to attain a desired outcome such as overpowering foes or gaining control over land.

In many cases, people justify

attacking a country under the pretense of liberating civilians from an oppressive government. They perceive their actions as morally justified, disregarding the severe consequences of war. Nevertheless, it is evident upon reflection that engaging in hostilities against another nation, despite good intentions, does not constitute an act of benevolence. Furthermore, war propaganda distorts individuals' perception of their responsibilities. When individuals are enlisted for combat, they are informed that safeguarding their country is both their duty and obligation to fulfill.

While some terrorists may use biological warfare as a religious duty to eradicate non-believers, the deliberate act of ending lives goes against fundamental principles of morality, irrespective of faith. This is because killing others is inherently immoral since it disregards the worth of each individual's life.

The act of killing someone implies that their life is considered disposable. However, according to Kant's categorical imperative, ethical duty is a commitment that must be upheld regardless of personal desires when faced with a specific situation. The categorical imperative also assumes that individuals in the same circumstances would behave similarly. However, this principle does not apply universally. Some countries oppose the use of biological warfare due to its harmful effects. Nonetheless, certain nations may resort to such tactics as a last resort to protect their own country. Similarly, ethics is rooted in an individual's moral responsibility.

Clayton states that ethics should guide individuals to behave morally. Unlike other philosophers, Aristotle does not prescribe a specific set of rules for ethical and political judgments. Instead, Aristotle argues that those who are virtuous will have the wisdom and insight to make right decisions using reason. Nevertheless, this idealistic perspective is frequently contradicted by reality,

as people often stray from what they acknowledge to be correct actions. An illustration of this is seen in rogue nations who knowingly violate international law by engaging in the development of biological agents.

During times of war, it is not uncommon for rogue nations to immediately destroy their expensive and extensively researched biological agents. This is because war creates confusion and distorts one's understanding of what is morally right, including their sense of duty. People have a tendency to redefine things and even values to serve their own interests. Consequently, those who support war may refer to Mill's idea of Utilitarianism, which states that the correct course of action is to pursue the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. Despite contradicting societal norms, actions considered right by the majority prevail. All these arguments suggest that war leads to different interpretations of definite concepts.

According to Kant, the reason for being obligated to obey the law is that we, as individuals, are responsible for giving the moral law its power. Our daily interactions with others imply certain moral laws that must be followed. However, during war, these moral laws are often disregarded as people prioritize their personal desires such as power, control, and hegemony, without considering the negative consequences for society.

It is important for rogue nations to understand that biological warfare is equivalent to committing genocide. It is a well-known fact that endangering human lives is morally unacceptable (Reyes). Nevertheless, rogue nations and terrorist groups believe that the purpose they are fighting for is more important than the lives that will be sacrificed. Consequently, for these individuals, achieving their objective is seen as justification for

any means necessary.

The significance of human life should not be easily dismissed. Many individuals consider life to be a divine gift. According to the Christian-Judeo belief, we are made in the image and likeness of God, indicating that each individual is unique. Additionally, one of the commandments in the Bible explicitly forbids killing others, emphasizing the great importance placed on human life. As a result, intentionally ending someone's life is deemed a sinful act.

Keeping this belief in mind, causing suffering or harm to another individual can be viewed as a violation of our spiritual obligation, which sometimes translates into a moral responsibility as well. This belief also extends to the functioning of society as a whole. The government is accountable to its citizens and must safeguard them by guaranteeing their safety at all times. Thomas Jefferson stated that the preservation of human life and happiness, rather than their destruction, is the primary and only legitimate goal of good governance ("National Sanctity of"). Therefore, safeguarding each other from harm is a moral duty of a civilized society ("National Sanctity of").

Therefore, it is immoral and goes against their responsibilities to their citizens and civilization as a whole for nations to involve themselves in warfare and employ biological weapons. In summary, based on the lessons learned from history, it is crucial to refrain from biological warfare. The destruction of human lives and the environment is not justified by any disagreement or supposed justifications. Instead of resorting to barbaric aggression, nations should resolve disputes in an appropriate and civilized manner.

This text demonstrates that despite the advancement of methods—now utilizing biological warfare instead of spears, guns, and cannons—people still revert

to antiquated approaches. Additionally, it is concerning that rogue nations are aware of the affordability, accessibility, difficulty to detect, and ease of concealment associated with biological agents, which makes biological warfare an attractive and efficient means to cause extensive destruction. However, the existence of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, along with moral principles advocated by Aquinas, Kant, and Aristotle, should serve as deterrents for rogue nations contemplating such abhorrent actions. Biological warfare possesses the capability to eradicate numerous individuals simultaneously.

This technology poses a potentially lethal threat to society, making it imperative to restrict its use altogether. No issue justifies employing such vengeance. Nations should not hold the power to determine the destiny of other nations or their citizens.