Ethical Dilemma

Answer

Ethical Dilemma: Amnesty International

Abstract

Amnesty International is a global non-profit organization that seeks to protect human rights across the globe. Amnesty International was formed in July 1961 by Peter Benenson, who was an English advocate. The organization has campaigned for the release of political prisoners, abolishment of the death penalty, protection of reproductive and sexual rights, ending discrimination, and protecting the rights of migrants and refugees. Key stakeholders include the government, staff, donors, organizations with similar interests, activists, funders, and the general population, especially those who are facing violations of their human rights. The ethical dilemma that has faced Amnesty International is the implementation of their policy on abortion, especially in regions that prohibit the practice. The ethical dilemma experienced by Amnesty International can be examined through the teleological philosophy of ethics, which argues that when making a decision, the consequences and goals of the action or decision should be considered with respect to a particular situation. Due to such issues, there is a need for Amnesty International to revise its stance on abortion because the practice is not only a legal issue but also an ethical issue in which all parties have their own opinions and values. Amnesty International needs to make a moderate decision that harmonizes with its pledge to work in harmony with the society and at the same time uphold the rights of all individuals in the society.

Ethical Dilemma- Amnesty International

Amnesty International is a global non-profit organization that seeks to protect human rights across the globe. The organization has more than ten million supporters and members globally (Amnesty International, n.d). Amnesty International carries out research and lobbies for action to help end or prevent instances of human rights violation as well as seek justice for the victims of human rights violation. The organization has been faced with various ethical dilemmas on issues such as abortion rights because of the moral implications and cultural differences across various countries that they operate in. The ethical dilemma experienced by Amnesty International can be examined through the teleological philosophy of ethics, which argues that when making a decision, the consequences and goals of the action or decision should be considered with respect to a particular situation (Ştefan, 2014). This paper describes Amnesty International, state its mission, vision, and history, and examine the ethical dilemma it is facing through a philosophical lens.

Mission and Vision

The vision of Amnesty International is to advocate and lobby for a society where each individual is free to enjoy all the human rights stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights statutory provisions (Amnesty International, n.d). Amnesty International’s mission is to conduct research and lobby for action to end or prevent human rights violations and seek justice for victims of human rights abuse (Amnesty International, n.d).

General structure

Amnesty International is based on global voluntary support and membership, and it has international networks, national branches, and affiliated groups (Keys, 2019). The International Council is the legal statutory authority that is responsible for conducting the affairs of Amnesty International. The functions of the International Council include setting the mission, vision, and core values of the organization, focusing on strategy, and determining the organization’s financial strategy and strategic plan (Keys, 2019). The International Council is also responsible for the establishment of bodies and systems of governance for the organization and the evaluation of the performance of the movement in relation to its set plans and strategies. In addition, the International Council is responsible for the accountability of national bodies, structures, and sections (Keys, 2019).

The movement also has an International Executive Committee, which is elected by the International Council to oversee stewardship and leadership of Amnesty International globally (Amnesty International, n.d). The functions of the International Executive Committee include making international decisions, ensuring the implementation of the strategic plan, and making sure that the organization complies with the Statute. The International Executive Committee also prepares and presents reports regarding the performance of national bodies and structure and presents the report to the International Council to measure accountability (Amnesty International, n.d). Furthermore, the committee is responsible for making any required adjustments to the decisions made by the international council. The International Executive Committee is made up of nine members, who are also members of Amnesty International. The members are elected by the International Council and they serve for a term of four years, after which they are eligible for re-election for the other two consecutive terms (Keys, 2019). The International Executive Committee has only one member from each national body or territory in which Amnesty International operates.

The organization also has the International Secretariat, which is headed by the Secretary-General. The International Secretariat conducts the daily affairs of Amnesty International such as carrying out research and preparing reports. The International Secretariat also provides legal examination and analysis of the research information to give an expert basis for lobbying of international structures and governmental organizations (Amnesty International, n.d). The body is also responsible for the provision of endorsed materials to other sections and structures to facilitate campaigning and lobbying. Moreover, the International Secretariat also maintains and supports the necessary systems of Amnesty International to ensure that the organization is in service twenty-four hours a day.

Amnesty International also has sections in more than seventy states that operate at a regional or national level. The sections oversee the communications, lobbying, campaigning, and fundraising within their region (Keys, 2019). The sections are also responsible for the development of media work strategies, recruitment of new members, and researching human rights violations within their region or country under the direction of the International Board. Amnesty International is also made up of volunteers who pay membership fees and take part in signing petitions, writing letters, activism, and demonstrations. The movement also has other networks of groups and individuals who have shared interests in the protection of human rights (Keys, 2019).

History

Amnesty International was formed in July 1961 by Peter Benenson, who was an English advocate (Amnesty International, n.d). While reading a newspaper article, Benenson came across a story about Portuguese students who had been sentenced to a term of seven years in jail for toasting to freedom. Agitated by such a story, Benenson wrote to The Observer newspaper, and the article was published under the title, The Forgotten Prisoners (Amnesty International, n.d). In the article, Benenson was asking the readers to show support to the Portuguese students by writing letters to newspaper publishers to defend those who have been victimized by human rights violations and injustices. Benenson’s article marked the beginning of the “Campaign for Amnesty-1961”, which purposed to mobilize wide public support for the victims of injustice, whom Benenson referred to as the “prisoners of conscience” (Amnesty International, n.d).

In 1962, the movement had various groups forming or working in Belgium, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, West Germany, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Switzerland, Ceylon, Congo, Australia, Greece, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Malaya, Burma, and Ghana (Keys, 2019). In the same year, Amnesty’s logo was designed by Diana Redhouse, a member of the movement. The logo, which is a candle and barbed wire, was borrowed from a Chinese saying: “Better to light a candle than curse darkness (Keys, 2019).” During its early years of existence, Amnesty International only focused on articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights. The articles deal with political prisoners who do not display violence, in other words, prisoners of conscience (Keys, 2019).

In 1977, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its unrelenting efforts in defending human rights around the globe (Keys, 2019). In the years that followed, Amnesty International continued to campaign for the release of those who had been imprisoned by oppressive regimes globally. For instance, in 1986, Amnesty International wrote a newsletter campaigning for the release of various prisoners from Vietnam, South Africa, Guatemala, Syria, South Korea, and the Soviet Union. In 1988, Amnesty International also wrote a newsletter appealing to the United Nations Security Council to take immediate action to put an end to the massacre of civilians in Kurd by the Iraqi forces (Keys, 2019).

In the 1980s, Amnesty International had increased its popularity and visibility through hosting various cultural events such as the Human Rights Now! Tour hosted worldwide in 1988, The Secret Policeman's Ball Series, and the Conspiracy of Hope Tour based in the United States in 1988. In the 1990s, the organization has more than one million members worldwide and had worked on many global events and human rights issues (Amnesty International, n.d). Over time, Amnesty International had expanded its operations to entail prevention of violation of the freedom from discrimination, right to mental and physical integrity, and freedom of expression and conscience.

Over the years, Amnesty International has grown from standing up for political prisoners to campaigning for the respect of all human rights and the end of oppression (Amnesty International, n.d). The organization has campaigned for the abolishment of the death penalty, protection of reproductive and sexual rights, ending discrimination, and protecting the rights of migrants and refugees. Amnesty International has opened offices in Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East. Currently, the organization has more than ten million members and has bases in more than seventy states (Amnesty International, n.d). Amnesty International has also been able to help seek justice for hundreds of thousands of victims of human rights abuse and injustices. 

Key Stakeholders

Amnesty International has both local and global stakeholders. The key stakeholders include the Amnesty International board and staff who coordinate the operations of the organization (Keys, 2019). Regional and national sectors that recruit new members and lobby domestic government. Other stakeholders are governments of the territories and regions in which Amnesty International operates.  Individual members and volunteers are also key stakeholders in Amnesty International. Other key stakeholders include donors, organizations with similar interests, activists, funders, and the general population, especially those who are facing violations of their human rights (Keys, 2019).

Ethical Dilemma Facing Amnesty International

            Ethics refers to the moral principles and standards by which society, organizations, or individuals govern their decision-making and behavior. An ethical dilemma is a situation in the context of decision-making where the available choices require one to compromise or violate their ethical standards (McLean et al., 2019). Ethical dilemmas are characterized by elements like the need to make a choice or decision, the presence of more than one option available, and the requirement of the decision-maker to compromise or violate their moral and ethical values. Ethical dilemmas can be self-imposed, obligatory, epistemic, and prohibition in nature (McLean et al., 2019).

            The ethical dilemma that has faced Amnesty International is their policy on abortion, especially in regions that prohibit the practice. Amnesty International argues that abortion is a reproductive right of every girl and woman and that it should be provided in a way that their human rights, dignity, autonomy, and needs are preserved (Piso, 2020). The organization has an abortion policy that requires that abortion should not be criminalized and all regions should provide universal and unlimited access to abortion, evidence-based and non-biased abortion information, and post-abortion care, which is free of discrimination, violence, coercion, and force (Piso, 2020).

            Although abortion has been constitutionally legalized in various regions across the world, the issue of termination of pregnancy is still a heated moral debate among many people. Some people claim that abortion is murder because a fetus is a human being who has similar rights to any other person (McLean et al., 2019). Some groups such as the Catholic Church oppose the decriminalization of abortion on the basis that the fetus has the same moral rights as any other human because there is no particular stage of development that one can claim that the fetus can now be regarded as a human being (Byrnes, 2019). Amnesty International seeks to operate in an environment where they do not oppose or disrupt religious principles and policies. Given the organization’s stance on abortion and that of the Catholic Church, implementing their policies on abortion could present an ethical dilemma (Byrnes, 2019).

            Some countries where Amnesty International operates have not legalized abortion. For instance, some countries such as Senegal, San Marino, Samoa, Congo, Malta, Mauritania, Madagascar, Laos, Iraq, Haiti, Gabon, El Salvador, Egypt, Dominican Republic, and Angola have criminalized the practice (Keys, 2019). Amnesty International is obligated to operate harmoniously with the states. The organization can have a hard time deciding whether to uphold its stance on abortion or support the criminalization of abortion in the countries where it is illegal. Both matters could spark an ethical dilemma in an organization because the decisions require compromising either of them (Byrnes, 2019).

            The decision to support the decriminalization of abortion by Amnesty International is an ethical dilemma itself. The organization pledges to uphold human rights and stand up for the victims of human rights violations. The fetus is a human being biological, who has the same rights as any other human and the mother also has her right to determine and make her own decision (Hoggart, 2019). Additionally, the mother may have health concerns or other conditions that can warrant an abortion. Deciding on the person’s right to prioritize in this situation can be challenging as both entities should be granted their human rights without discrimination. Such a situation can create an ethical dilemma for Amnesty International because its mission is to end and prevent abuse of human rights and seek justice for victims of human rights violations (Keys, 2019).

The Need for a Decision by Amnesty International

            The issue of abortion is very complex, especially in conservative societies. Such complexity creates an ethical dilemma for organizations that seek to end and prevent violation of human rights such as Amnesty International. Since Amnesty International operates in both liberal and conservative societies, there is a need to make decisions and policies that uphold the organization’s vision and mission while at the same time avoiding conflicts with the society for opposing their values and moral standards (Amnesty International, n.d).

            Amnesty International already has a stance on the issue of abortion. The organization acknowledges that any woman who becomes pregnant is entitled to the right to terminate the pregnancy (Piso, 2020). Amnesty International also requires that all women be provided with universal and unlimited access to safe abortion, evidence-based information on abortion, and post-abortion care. Furthermore, the organization wants all punitive and restricting policies and laws on abortion to be abolished in areas that prohibit abortion. However, the organization’s decision has not been well received by all of its members because of the diversity of ethical and moral standards (Piso, 2020). Due to such issues, there is a need for Amnesty International to revise its decision because abortion is not only a legal issue but also an ethical issue in which all parties have their own opinions and values.

            Amnesty International needs to make a moderate decision that harmonizes with its pledge to work in harmony with the society and at the same time uphold the rights of all individuals in the society. Biologically, a fetus is a human being, and therefore, the fetus should be accorded human rights too (Covan, 2020). Women and mothers should also have their sexual and reproductive rights respected and upheld. Amnesty International is an organization that seeks to prevent and end the violations and abuse of human rights. Given that the mother and the fetus both have their rights, taking a one-sided stance on abortion and not allowing for flexibility is not right. Having an extreme stand on the legalization of abortion and removal of all restrictions could suggest that the organization does not entirely protect and seek justice for all the victims of human rights abuse. Moreover, having a non-flexible stand on the issue of abortion could contradict the organizational values of Amnesty International (Hoggart, 2019).

            The organization should assume a more flexible stance on abortion given the ethical dilemma it presents. For instance, Amnesty International should only advocate for abortion in the case where the life of the mother is in extreme danger or in case of rape or incest instead of advocating for the removal of all restrictions on abortion (Hoggart, 2019). This is because both the fetus and the mother have human rights that should be respected. In addition, having a moderate and flexible stance on the issue can even encourage the countries that have entirely criminalized abortion to loosen up a bit and allow abortion in the future (Hoggart, 2019). Furthermore, adopting a moderate stance will ensure that Amnesty International does not contradict its pledge to protect all human rights and operate in conflict with the state, religious bodies, and the entire society (Covan, 2020).

Abortion Ethical Dilemma Through Philosophical Lens

Termination of pregnancy is a complex issue that cannot be unanimously classified to be good or bad (Meyer, 2020). This is because the process involves the human rights of two entities, that is, the mother and the fetus (Covan, 2020). On one end, abortion is a reproductive right of every girl and woman, and it should be provided in a way that their human rights, dignity, autonomy, and needs are preserved. On the other end, abortion means ending a human life, and the fetus, as a human being, is entitled to the right to life and all other human rights. As such, determining good or bad in the issue of abortion is difficult given the circumstances (Covan, 2020). As discussed earlier, Amnesty International faces an ethical dilemma on the decision concerning abortion policies.  The ethical dilemma faced by Amnesty International can be examined through the teleological lens (Ştefan, 2014).

The teleological perspective argues that when making a decision, it is crucial to consider the consequences or goals of action based on the specific situation (Ştefan, 2014). According to the teleological approach, the divisions or perceptions of right or wrong are not objective but rather subjective and based on the context. The teleological approach can take the form of proportionalism, consequentialism, and situation ethics (Meyer, 2020). Proportionalism states that the morality of an action or decision is validated by the percentage of impacts that proceed. Consequentialism argues that the morality of a given action is derived from the repercussions of the action. Situation ethics hold that the situation or context determines if the action is right or wrong (Meyer, 2020).

In the context of Amnesty International, their stance on the issue of abortion is that all women who can get pregnant should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. The organization holds that there should be no restrictions on abortion like allowing abortion only when the life of the mother is in danger (Piso, 2020). However, some societies have criminalized abortion on grounds that it is a violation of human rights while others have permitted the practice under specific circumstances like when life is at stake or if the pregnancy was a result of incest or rape. Lack of flexibility in the organization’s stance on abortion creates an ethical dilemma especially in regions where abortion is criminalized (Hoggart, 2019).

Through a teleological lens, the ethical dilemma presented by Amnesty International's stance on abortion is due to the failure to exercise flexibility in terms of situations and consequences. The teleological approach requires that the goals and consequences of action be considered before making a decision (Meyer, 2020). Amnesty’s policy of abortion is that there should be no restrictions on the practice. Such an approach could be dangerous because the rights of the fetus will be neglected at the expense of the mother even in situations where abortion was not necessary (Meyer, 2020). As such, Amnesty’s approach presents an ethical dilemma due to its extremely liberal stand, which does not create a balance between the rights of both parties involved in abortion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Amnesty International is a global organization that seeks to prevent and end instances of human rights violations and seek justice for the victims of human rights abuse. The organization has campaigned for the release of political prisoners, abolishment of the death penalty, protection of reproductive and sexual rights, ending discrimination, and protecting the rights of migrants and refugees. Amnesty International is faced with an ethical dilemma in the implementation of their policy on abortion as they support decriminalization of abortion while some of their members are against it on grounds of ethical and moral standards. The abortion ethical dilemma can be examined through the teleological approach, which holds that the goals and consequences of action be considered before making a decision.

art skills.