Is ‘intelligence ethics' an oxymoron'?

Intelligence ethics is crucial to every aspect of intelligence, being incorporated into both intelligence gathering and collection, as well as encompassing various ethical concerns to privacy, surveillance, and interrogation techniques. The Oxford English dictionary defines an oxymoron as “A figure of speech that combines two usually contradictory terms in a compressed paradox, as in the word bittersweet...”, From this definition, the question can be raised of whether the notion of ‘intelligence ethics’ is indeed inherently paradoxical. Furthermore, to be able to establish whether ‘intelligence ethics’ is an oxymoron, perspectives of ethics need to be used, with the ethical lenses of utilitarianism, deontology and just war theory being used. Using these lenses to examine 'intelligence ethics' one can look at the ethical considerations within the intelligence field. The primary argument to be presented is that 'intelligence ethics' is not an oxymoron when analysed from these perspectives, with each theory offering a framework for navigating the complexities of intelligence work. Indeed, intelligence professionals can use a combination of the three theories in an ethical framework to remain ethical in their actions. Finally, it is necessary to take into account the issues that emerge with each theory on ethics when looking at the intelligence field and how ethical dilemmas can emerge from seeking to justify the means. Nevertheless, it can be argued that when looking at intelligence ethics from each theory view, it is not an oxymoron, as each provides a unique framework from which intelligence professionals can work while maintaining ethical boundaries, and a homologated ethical idea provides the greatest foundation from which ethical and successful intelligence work can be undertaken.

First, to understand whether intelligence ethics is an oxymoron, it is necessary to understand the theories involved. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on maximising overall happiness and minimising overall suffering, with Mill describing utilitarianism as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." This emphasises the core principles of utilitarianism, highlighting the ideas of the greatest happiness principle, which suggests that actions are morally right if they seek to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham states, “In thinking about the consequences of an act we have to take into account not only the ones that would have ensued from the act even if there had been no intention but also the ones that depend on connections between those and the intention.”. From this, one can perceive the nature of utilitarianism, an ethical theory which possesses several strengths, especially when looking at the intelligence field. Secondly, it is impartial, as it treats the happiness of all individuals as equally important, and it should be noted that personal biases can intrude into this idea as with all ethical theories. Deontology is another ethical theory which uses rules to distinguish between right and wrong. The theory created by Immanuel Kant is founded on the idea that morals must come from reason rather than religion or tradition, with all humans being worthy of respect and dignity. Indeed, his key principle was “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”. The theory suggests that other people should never be used as a means to an end. Finally, the just war theory provides a unique view of ethics, with it being directed specifically to the idea that there is a right way for states to act in times of war, with the ideas of ‘Jus Ad Bellum’ and ‘Jus in Bello’ being inherent to the concept. It should, however be noted that intelligence itself does not always fall under the guise of a war and, as such, is oftentimes better related to politics than solely to war.

Whilst there remains elements of perspective and discretion on the part of the intelligence professionals, for the most part each ethical theory allows intelligence professionals the ability to operate in an ethical manner. First with a utilitarian perspective agencies would seek to consider the consequences of their actions and make decisions which harm the least number of people as well as decisions not based on morality as highlighted by Singer who states “Thus the basic utilitarian principle taken by itself says nothing about whether peace is better than war, truth better than lying, or socialism better than capitalism.”. Using a deontological perspective intelligence professionals would seek to act in a way that is objectively moral and seeks to treat all involved with a level of respect and integrity that all humans are owed. Finally intelligence professionals seeking to act in a manner which adheres to that of just war theory would seek to conduct operations where possible adhering to the ideas of ‘Jus Ad Bellum’ and ‘Jus in Bello’, acting in a way which is becoming of a nation at war, however not all operations would be conducted in a state of war leading to a political view of ethics needing to be adopted. As a result of this, for the vast majority of intelligence agencies, utilitarianism is employed as it allows for the greatest amount of freedom in their operations.  It is over-simplistic to suggest that utilitarianism unconditionally condones morally questionable actions, as it requires an in-depth and careful assessment of the consequences of the action, however, it does provide a level of freedom not afforded by the other actions.  As a result, it can be argued that it would be wrong to suggest that intelligence ethics is an oxymoron, as theories such as that of utilitarianism provide the intelligence professionals relatively high levels of freedom whilst working within an ethical framework.

Secondly, to understand whether ‘intelligence ethics ‘ is an oxymoron it is necessary to understand the ideas of intelligence ethics. Intelligence ethics refers to the study and implementation of ethical ideas and principles in the field of intelligence gathering, analysis, and operations, including the moral obligations of intelligence professionals, the ethical dilemmas they face, and the establishment of oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and adherence to ethical standards employed by respective government and official bodies. Intelligence operations are inherently personal, as well as often leading to a variety of ethical dilemmas, such as whether it is ever justifiable to torture someone. Utilitarianism focuses on the overarching well-being of society, allowing intelligence professionals to weigh the benefits of mass surveillance or enhanced interrogation against the potential harm that would arise from inaction. Dershowitz highlights this, stating “Adopting an overtly utilitarian argument, Dershowitz asserts that torturing individuals when they are known to hold information that could save lives is ethically justifiable (this has been dubbed the “ticking bomb” argument). 6”. A deontological approach to such issues leads to the creation of an ethical dilemma whereby acting immorally may lead to the harm of people who otherwise would have been saved by acting under another ethical framework. This idea is highlighted by Miller: “for intelligence the ethical dilemma faced includes recognizing and reconciling that it necessarily includes practices that unavoidably entail doing something that is seriously contrary to the moral rules accepted as governing most human activity”. Miller highlights that decisions that are contrary to the morally acceptable rules are unavoidable within intelligence, creating issues surrounding the use of a deontological view of ethics within intelligence. Finally, the employment of the just war theory concerning intelligence ethics creates issues surrounding the actions allowed during times of war and peace, with operations such as that of spying and interrogation occurring outside of times of war. Andregg highlights how the lines between what is legal can be blurred in the phrase “The terms"‘ethics " and "spies’ do not combine easily since spies routinely break the laws of target countries …. engage in …. blackmail, murder and other crimes..” From this, one can infer that each respective view of ethics can be applied uniquely to intelligence ethics and, as a consequence, uniquely to those looking to enforce such ethical ideas. Ethical oversight mechanisms play a necessary role in ensuring that intelligence activities adhere to ethical standards. Such mechanisms may include independent review boards, internal ethics committees and legal frameworks which can help ensure that intelligence professionals follow utilitarian, deontological or just war theory principles by assessing the consequences of their actions. In this way, ethical oversight and accountability mechanisms contribute to a culture of ethical decision-making and reinforce the importance of ethics within the intelligence community, an idea which is in direct contradiction to that which suggests that there is no place for ethics in intelligence, stipulating that instead, intelligence ethics is an oxymoron.

Finally, to establish whether intelligence ethics is an oxymoron, it is necessary to contextualise the ethical theories and respective ideas by applying them to modern case studies. First one can look at how each respective ethical theory would seek to deal with the moral and ethical questions created by mass surveillance operations such as the NSA’s PRISM which sought to collect individual data with the aim of discovering and defining those whom the state believed were planning on conducting terrorist activities within the United States. The program garnered mass criticism as it collected data not only on those suspected of being associated with terrorist organisations but on all those in the United States. When analysed from a utilitarian perspective, the mass surveillance program may be justifiable if it results in greater overall happiness by preventing terrorist attacks and preserving national security. The prevention of terrorist attacks. However, the program's effectiveness and its infringement on individual privacy must be weighed against the potential benefits. This approach was used by the NSA to justify its surveillance campaign, however, it is unclear as to how effective the campaign has been. From a deontological perspective, the view would be taken that mass surveillance is inherently unethical, as it violates the individual's right to privacy.. The outcomes of the surveillance program would be irrelevant to the moral evaluation of the program itself. Finally, while the just war theory primarily deals with warfare, when applied to intelligence activities, the mass surveillance program would need to adhere to principles such as just cause, right intention, and proportionality. The program may be deemed ethical if it is implemented to protect national security and adheres to these principles. The need to adhere to one of these theories is expanded upon by  Greenwald who says on the matter “Both the United States and the United Kingdom have made clear that there are no limits—ethical, legal, or political— that they will observe when they claim to be acting in the name of “terrorism.” This suggests the need for intelligence agencies to refer to an ethical framework as to act in a way which remains moral. 

Furthermore, one can look at the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA post 9/11 attacks. The techniques themselves were not only considered by many to be torture but also occurred at Guantanamo Bay, meaning that the 119 people detained were stripped not only of their human rights but also their legal rights. The issues of implementing such a program without consent of the populous is highlighted in phrase “the great crime of the Bush Administration is that it decided how to wield the “great and terrible power” (91) of the government without public debate”. From a utilitarian perspective, enhanced interrogation techniques might be justified if they lead to the prevention of terrorist attacks. However, this approach would also require weighing the harms caused by these techniques against the potential benefits. A deontological view of ethics would see the techniques as inherently unethical as they violate the moral duties of respecting human dignity. The potential outcomes of the interrogation techniques would not justify their use. Finally, applying just war theory to intelligence ethics, the techniques would need to adhere to principles such as proportionality and discrimination. If the techniques violate these principles, they would be considered unethical. The effectiveness of each ethical theory in addressing ethical concerns in both cases varies. Utilitarianism is useful for weighing the consequences of intelligence activities, but it may lead to morally questionable outcomes if the benefits are deemed to outweigh the harms. Deontological ethics provide a more rigid ethical framework, focusing on inherent moral values, but may not account for the complexities inherent in intelligence activities. Just war theory offers a nuanced approach by balancing moral principles with pragmatic concerns, but its primary focus on warfare may limit its applicability to intelligence ethics. Each of these theories aims to prevent  those in power from “simply asserting their absolute right to take such action as they see fit.” Whilst each case study highlights the distinct difference between each view of ethics, it underscores the importance of possessing a multifaceted approach to understanding and evaluating ethical dimensions of intelligence activities, as well as the importance of possessing an ethical framework.

However some may argue that there are limitations to each ethical theory when addressing complex ethical issues in intelligence and question the applicability of just war theory to intelligence activities. They may contend that in real-life scenarios, intelligence operatives prioritise mission completion over adhering to an ethical framework, leading to actions contradicting ethical theories. Furthermore, some might argue that just war theory has limited application to intelligence agencies operating outside of war periods. Both arguments could imply that intelligence ethics is an oxymoron due to the impossibility of consistently acting ethically within an intelligence environment. However, each ethical theory can be implemented into an intelligence agency's culture. Utilitarianism offers a practical approach by evaluating consequences, helping professionals make decisions that achieve operational goals while minimising harm. Deontological ethics ensures respect for moral duties and rights, providing a moral foundation for decision-making and ethical operations. Just war theory presents a nuanced balance between moral principles and realistic scenarios, aiding professionals in navigating complex situations involving conflicting values. Intelligence ethics is not an oxymoron once all theories have been synthesised, recognising their complementary nature. Utilitarianism provides a consequentialist perspective to evaluate practical implications, while deontological ethics grounds decision-making in strong moral principles. Just war theory bridges the gap between principles and rational concerns, offering guidelines for navigating ethically challenging situations. By considering each theory's contributions, a comprehensive understanding of intelligence ethics can be achieved, enabling intelligence professionals to make more ethical decisions and demonstrating that intelligence ethics is not an oxymoron.

In conclusion, intelligence ethics is not an oxymoron, especially when viewed from utilitarianism, deontological, and just war theory perspectives, as they provide different frameworks for balancing individual rights, collective security, and moral principles. Utilitarianism emphasises the importance of considering the consequences of actions and making decisions that minimise harm when compared to the outcome. Deontological ethics focuses on adherence to moral duties and rights, ensuring that the rights of individuals are not sacrificed for the sake of collective security. Just war theory offers a nuanced balance between moral principles and realistic concerns, providing guidelines for making ethically sound decisions in the face of conflicting values and interests.It should be noted that intelligence remains an area where ethics are of utmost importance with Hurka stating on the possible abuse of ethics ``‘a government which found someone against the law prevalent, and in its inability to end the offenders punished innocent people on the strength of manufactured evidence, would still be able to justify its action’.”  As such, to remain within ethical guidelines, intelligence professionals must engage in continuous dialogue and reflection to navigate the complex ethical landscape they face. By considering diverse ethical perspectives, intelligence professionals can better understand the moral implications of their actions and ensure that their decisions align with both moral principles and practical requirements. This commitment to ethical reflection and consideration is vital for fostering a culture of responsibility, transparency, and integrity within the intelligence community, ultimately contributing to more effective and ethically sound intelligence practices. Therefore it can be argued that to say that intelligence ethics is an oxymoron would be a gross oversimplification of nuanced issues, with the reality being that ethics is of crucial important to intelligence professional, with each ethical theory providing a framework to work within, with a homologation of the three providing the greatest framework for professionals to operate within.

Bibliography 

 Baldick, Chris. "oxymoron." The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. : Oxford University Press, . Oxford Reference. 

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London, Parker, son, and Bourn, 1863. Pdf. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/11015966/>. Page 8

 Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Dover Publications, 2007. Page 43

 Johnson, Robert and Adam Cureton, "Kant’s Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), 

 Singer, P.. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Page 64

 Ethics of Spying : A Reader for the Intelligence Professional, edited by Jan Goldman, Scarecrow Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,  http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=500837.Page 52 

Miller, S., Regan, M., & Walsh, P.F. (Eds.). (2021). National Security Intelligence and Ethics (1st ed.). Routledge.Page 20

Andregg, Michael, 'Ethics and Professional Intelligence', in Loch K. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of National Security Intelligence, Oxford Handbooks (2010; online edn, Oxford Academic, 2 Sept. 2010), Page 736 

 Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. New York, NewYork, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2014.

Mayer, J. (2008). The dark side: The inside story of how the war on terror turned into a war on American ideals. - Review, Doubleday & Co. Branislav L. SlantchevUniversity of California – San Diego  Page 5

 Just and Unjust Warriors : The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers, edited by David Rodin, and Henry Shue, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, Page 242

 Hurka, Thomas, 'Consequentialism vs. Deontology', British Ethical Theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing, The Oxford History of Philosophy (Oxford, 2014; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Nov. 2014),  Page 167