Arrested Development and Philosophy_ They've Made a Huge Mistake - Kristopher G. Phillips [82]
What about the other two conditions? If George Sr. had the destruction of the United States in mind when he built mini-palaces for Saddam, things would be pretty bad. That would definitely fulfill condition (2). But if his behavior throughout the series is any indication, George Sr. is primarily motivated by making money (Caged Wisdom, Cornballer, the Bluth Banana Jail Bars, cheap houses, and on and on) and base feelings of jealousy. After all, he sold out his twin brother, Oscar, so he could be with a wife he doesn’t seem to care about all that much. Moreover, if the mini-palaces he built actually aided Iraq in hiding WMDs or housed prisoners of war or were torture facilities, this would take George Sr.’s treasonous acts to a whole other level because it would fulfill condition (3). None of those things happened. It’s not like George Sr. and Saddam were making and finishing each other’s sandwiches. At most, the homes provided an occasionally comfortable place to stay for a few Saddam look-alikes.
No matter how you cut it, on our interpretation of the law, George Sr.’s treason was quite light. Despite its light qualification, George Sr. committed treason against his country by building model homes, which aided an enemy. Just as he failed to be loyal to his family, George Sr.’s actions were disloyal to his country. The facts of the case bear this out. But political philosophy isn’t just interested in whether a particular act fails to meet the letter of the law. It’s also concerned with whether we ought to follow the law in the first place. Yes, George Sr. technically committed light treason, but why is that a bad thing? In order to determine why it’s bad that George Sr. commits treason, we need to look at why he has obligation to be loyal to his country.
“We Do Need to Stick Together Like a Family on This”: Why Treason Is Wrong
Sometimes philosophers make easy questions seem hard. Didn’t we just show that treason involves supporting the enemies of the state? Enemies—like Saddam—who wouldn’t lose any sleep if the United States was wiped off the face of the earth! We know why mass murder is wrong—it kills a lot of people. And presumably, helping a dictator hide WMDs would make someone partly responsible for mass murder if the WMDs were ever used. However, being a murderer, even a mass murderer, is different than being a traitor. If you help Saddam develop and maintain WMDs and he blows up his own people, you have a hand in the mass murder. By itself, however, that terrible deed doesn’t make you a traitor to your own country. Helping hide the WMDs would amount to treason only if Saddam threatens your homeland. The defining characteristic of treason is intending harm to your country or compatriots. So, the wrongness of treason must depend on some special duty or obligation George Sr. has to his country or fellow citizens. Philosophers have come up with a lot of theories about why we have an obligation to our fellow citizens or country, and these theories can roughly be sorted into one of two umbrella categories: instrumental theories and relational theories. Since each type of theory provides a different kind of explanation as to why we have the obligation, they provide different standards to use for assessing George’s dealings with Iraq.
The Instrumental Approach
According to instrumental theories, the reason we should all support our government, and the reason why the government can demand obedience, has to do with the benefits a government provides that cannot be secured any other way. On this general approach, the government is a tool that we can use to reach our goals. Governments are particularly good at helping us secure certain goods that are hard for individuals to get but which help everybody; for example, no individual can secure our borders. Just look at Buster. He couldn’t get a bird out of the house without causing damage or even get over a medium-sized wall during his army training. There’s no way he could