The Dubious Morality of the Spy

I was unable to get to this topic in the InsideOutcast #2 as I had difficulty formulating my thoughts at the time. Here is something akin to what I would like to have said.

In the game of espionage, one must balance one's deeds against that that which he seeks to defend or protect. The ends do not justify the means. The means are part and parcel with the ends. They are connected. To defeat the enemy but suffer great losses is a hollow victory, as Sun Tsu said in The Art of War. It is not enough that the enemy is defeated. One must not lose necessary resources in the process. This may be men, and this may be morals.

Immanual Kant put forward his Categorical imperative, a moral philosophy that suggested one approach one's actions imagining if everyone else were to do the same. What world would that be? If I must kill to achieve my goals, then so, too, can anyone else. If killing is an acceptable method, then no one is safe.

On the other hand, if one were to look at the utilitarian argument, a little evil is acceptable if much good can come from it. This is a touchy subject at best. An innocent may suffer or die if the majority can benefit. This is the crux of Christianity, that one suffers so the rest may be saved. There is the tincture of evil in such a philosophy. If one suffers, then all suffer, as pain and despair are shared experiences. Moreover, those that permit such acts have blood on their hands. This is the worst element of democracy. The small must suffer that the large can reap the reward.

In lifeboat ethics, also known as social Darwinism, the end is survival. What ever we must do to survive is permitted. If we have food only for three and there are four people, who gets left out? If we must travel, who is the slowest that will keep us back? Lifeboat ethics are a system of values in an emergency. However, what price is survival if we turn our back on who we should be?

In the field, spies must weigh the good against the bad. Assassination, blackmail, extortion, theft, invasion of privacy. Are these necessary tools to ensure our safety and standard of living, or are they a step too far? At the same time one must consider that the logic of war is that if the belligerent can fight, they will fight* If our enemies seek all means to destroy us, should we not seek the same to protect ourselves? It is a difficult question to answer. One would hope not to have enemies, but the world is often not so kind.

Perhaps the answer is that we all become Canadian.

*taken from a :wumpscut: track. I do not know the original source.