The case: Crowdfunding the war in Ukraine with Cryptocurrencies
Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army, a lot of reactions have ensued: From the almost unanimous condemnation of the UN to logistical aid to the Ukrainian defense forces not in the form of humanitarian supplies but also war vehicles, weapons, and ammunition.
The MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction) advises that countries with nuclear weapons should not engage directly. Hence NATO and EU countries have started to apply unprecedented economic sanctions, like the exclusion of Russian banks from the SWIFT international banking communications, the ban of imports and exports from and to Russia ( not including oil and gas by the time being), and the direct seizing of actives owned by Russian oligarchs in western countries, including Switzerland and Monaco. Media associated with the Russian government (like Russia Today ) have been canceled in platforms like Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook in several countries. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the cyber-war that arguably was already ongoing. For example, the cyber activist group Anonymous has declared war against Russia and has allegedly hacked media servers in Russia to expose news about the war in Ukraine to the Russian population. The Russian government has passed legislation that makes spreading "false information" about the war a crime punishable with up to 15 years of prison.
In this scenario, thousands of citizens worldwide have started donating cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and Ether) to wallets owned by the Ukrainian government. This constitutes an unprecedented fact in history: the crowdfunding of a war effort in a country by foreign citizens. The Ukrainian government has decided to take advantage of this situation and promised the airdrop of tokens to the Ethereum wallets that had donated until a given deadline. This caused a significant increase in donations, including hundreds of thousands of micro-donations not motivated by solidarity but as speculation.
You must prepare an argumentation in favor or against the ethical implications of "the crowdfunding of a war effort in a country by foreign citizens" in this context using the logic of one of the ethical theories studied in class: Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract, and Virtue Ethics.
As "ammunition" for your arguments (pun intended), you can use the case presentation you are reading, plus any source you have found online. Note that in this case, properly understanding concepts (crowdfunding.
Summary of the debate in class.
(Kantian +, 12 votes) If roles were reversed one would welcome the help
(Kantian +, 3 votes) It is an action that springs from good intentions (not treating it as means to an end )
Rebates :
1) (Kantian -, 12 votes) Is it really it? It is not self-interest? An action that is done out of fear and using the Ukrainian land as a shield for the west?
2) (Kantian -, 9 votes) Good intentions should not lead to providing weapons.
(Kantian +, 0 votes) Would be a good thing if everybody acted in this way.
Rebate :
2) (Kantian -, 10 votes) It would be not, It could backfire and make wars more gruesome (like Napoleonic wars after the french revolution, when all the people of the state got involved in the war effort ) and would certainly benefit and incentivize the weapons industry)
(Utilitarian view)
Both groups decided to use "human (and animal) suffering minimization" as the main value to optimize for.
Those in favor: In the long term, stopping an authoritarian tyrant with a record of invading countries is necessary to prevent suffering. Ukrainians will suffer more under the Puttin's yolk than if they surrender.
Those against: In the short term the best bet to stop suffering is to stop the war. Crowdfunding Ukrainian's defense only makes it worse, and what will come later is unknown.
These two points are in heavy dispute with a slight majority on the side in favor.
(Social contract)
In favor:
This is an example of participatory democracy. (vote with wallet)
- UN Charter Preamble 1st Paragraph:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedo
(All in favor)
Against:
10 commandments (seen as a social contract for the believers in the Christian churches )
-Thou shall not kill
(a contract that has been disrespected by the very churches over centuries)
Rebate: Asimov's robotic rules: Thou shall not kill or by lack of action allow someone to be killed.
