Ethical Consequences of Libya As the world finally comes to realization of the Libyan crisis, why is it happening to them? That world underlies all the other questions being asked. It screams a defiant NO! From Col. el- Qaddafi, and an emphatic YES!, From the rebels of Libya. Between these two ends, lie's various responses framed by the diplomats at United Nations and Arab League. These responses are now debating over policy, among the military coalition partners and the thriving discussions in the global media.

Like so many questions out there in the global world, this one is fundamentally ethical. That's the most important point. The hoards of innocent people killed every day, it is impossible to think that all of them are master minds behind some conspiracy against the government. If other nations are ready to send their forces, it's because all that is happening in Libya crosses all ethical boundaries. There are other questions as well: are we doing the economically advantageous thing or the politically right thing, or of course the militarily effective thing? As relevant as these questions are, there answers rely on the historically precedent events, there strategic outcomes and the numerical data. As most of us are the citizens of the U.N member countries, there issues embark a great interest as to what our nations stance on the situation is, this also puts a great deal of pressure on countries as past mistakes cannot be repeated again. But there's little substance as to what we can contribute to the debate. Lacking the essential expertise, most of us are spectators rather than participants.

When the question on ethics comes, we must be participants. To be able to ask, "What's right?" The answer to this is what we believe our collective moral worth is. We won't do this in a vacuum; rather the facts on the ground will shape our moral responses at every turn. We will divide our paper in three sections, outcomes, principles,...

For everyone, ethics is done, when things are going well. Consequences determine the worth of thing. Since consequences come in the future, the ends -- based thinkers tend to become moral speculators. Will Qaddafi, if cornered by forces, choose fight or flight? Will Libya be portioned? Will this be a long war, a quick victory or a bad defeat? Will the rebels, if they come to power, maintain their interest in democracy or drift into their own tyranny Will the oil industry be wrecked? We have to keep in mind that these rebels are not trained or equipped with anything but their determination to free their country.
For end thinkers these are important assessments. The goals of the U.N are to protect Libyans from massacres by loyalist troops. Yet given the nature of the situation in Libya, civilians lives will also be at risk from coalition, firepower; while some coalition forces maybe lost.

Principles. Ethics also gets done when you adhere, when people adhere to a rule or standard that the government wishes everyone to follow. One such standard has already been articulated by U.S. president Barack Obama, French president Nicolas Sarkosy also by every nation the U.N

Committees are in agreement that we cannot stand idly while Qaddafi kills his own people. This standard if taken as a universal principal would say "Always stand against genocide" and a parallel standard might say "Always support democratic freedom-fighters" or "Always promote civil society." In the application of such standard, people set their sights well beyond immediate consequences. If intervention to save civilians is right, it will remain right, whether or not Qaddafi retains office. If support to democratic revolution is right, it will always be like that even if free elections bring power to an anti-western government.

In the past…