The Ministry for the Future is an organization dedicated to slowing the progression of climate change. The appointed Minister, Mary, works to uphold the Paris climate agreement and makes ethical and well-thought out decisions. This pattern however, is interrupted when Frank kidnaps her. He is the first person to hold the so-called “mirror” up to Mary and tell her that the way she’s doing things is not effective or working. Mary takes this to heart, and works after this confrontation to make a change in her methods and the methods of the ministry. This includes her subtle acknowledgement of the work that the black wing of The Ministry is doing. The biggest question raised by this “new method” is, to what extent is black wing work within the Ministry ethical?
Mary questions Badim about the possibility of a black wing and he states, “imagine that there might already be a black wing of the Ministry for the Future” (Robinson 110). Mary is shocked by the presence of a black wing working in her very organization that she didn’t know about. She is tentatively supportive of their efforts, once assuring that the work done by the black wing does not include murder- for the most part. They focus mostly on financial extortion and blackmail. When looking at the black wing of the Ministry’s work, it can be deduced that there is an extent of ethicality to their work. They start off targeting only wealthy energy companies, focusing on making their work unprofitable. While this work cannot be directly supported by the Ministry, Mary agrees that it may be helpful for their efforts. The method of following the money is more ethical to some degree than the work of other groups, like Children of Kali.
The argument that the black wing of the Ministry is unethical can be seen when looking at other effects of work such as shutting down coal plants. This includes the many jobs lost and people left unemployed following closure of these plants. Despite the damage they do to the environment, coal plants do have positive effects such as employment opportunities. Every good thing that the black wing does may have negative effects for many people beyond what they realize. Mary is hesitant about the black wing because she believes that doing things by the book is the right way to make a difference and have minimal negative impact. When talking to Chandra following the death of millions of Indian citizens, Mary is still insistent that they should follow the agreement. She states, “but the agreement… you know what it says” (Robinson 19). She understands the urgency of the situation, but cannot ignore the nagging feeling that breaking the agreement will do more harm than good.
The most compelling argument that the black wing is ethical comes from something that was stated in a class discussion; when has there ever been a revolution without death? When it comes to a certain point, as it did in Robinson’s Utopia, drastic measures are needed to make a change. In The Ministry's case, this is when Badim blows up the Ministry’s offices. This seemed like a drastic measure at the time, but it was the only thing that made the Swiss government take action and stand with the Ministry. It can be argued that at a certain point, the work of a black wing is necessary, making it inherently ethical. The idea of the “greater good” is a theme that Robinson reflects strongly on. At the end of the day the question remains; does hurting a few to save many make enough of a change to be considered ethical?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother important question to ask, along with how ethical the black wing is, would be "does it matter if it is ethical?". Of course, most if not all people would almost exclusively say that murder and blackmail is bad, and we certainly wouldn't want a governmental agency (or global agency) using these tactics to further their agendas. However, what happens when the agenda they are pushing is for the greater good of the planet? What if the ministry had existed before the India heatwave and could have prevented it by threatening or killing, say, "about a hundred" so-called "mass murderers" (Robinson 99). I would argue at that point, if there was reasonable belief that some sort of unethical action towards these people could prevent 20 million people from dying, then ethics is out of the question. Of course, to keep it "somewhat ethical", the actions could begin with just threats. However, at some point, the global trolley problem becomes way too massively outweighed in favor of the many over the few that, ethics aside, actions must be taken. Does it then become unethical to make the decision for the greater good, even if that decision leads one down an unethical road? For example, if events such as Crash Day and the following similar attacks had occurred before the heat wave and had the same or similar effect as they did on the world when they did happen, could the heatwave have been avoided? According to the novel, "about seven thousand people died [on Crash Day]" (Robinson 228). The outcome of crash day, however, was that almost the entire world banded together within a couple years to combat global warming and, in the end, make great dents in the carbon in the atmosphere. So, the questions repeats itself, are seven thousand lives lost worse than 20 million? Both numbers include far too many innocents, so in some ways the question is fair. Killing innocents should never be the answer, however, when posed with purposely killing thousands, versus "accidentally" (based on negligence) killing millions, ethics becomes a hard word to define.
ReplyDelete