A very complex issue that seems to be resolved at the moment is Russia and the US’s plans for stopping Syrian president Esad’s use of chemical weapons on his own country’s citizens. Initially it was strongly predicted that the US would stop Esad with military force but Russia asked Esad to give up his weapons and he surprisingly cooperated.This action best benefits the world but leaves Syria’s citizens in the corner.
Even if Esad is destroying all of the country’s weapons under surveillance, Syrians are still suffering. All of people want his rule to end but other countries do not
want to intervene because they do not want to start another war.Therefore the United States and Russia only want Esad to surrender his weapons and this does not fit at all with libertarianism.The thousands of people who were killed because of these weapons do not get justice and the people who are still alive continue to live in fear.
While Syrians are still in danger, the rest of the world can take a breath because a war that was in the horizon is now averted. Nobody would want another Iraq
case so many people were relieved when Syria agreed to Russia’s terms. Therefore the majority benefited by this and therefore this goes with Bentham’s views that says actions should be done for the majority.
It is very debatable whether or not what Russia did was “right”. On one hand Esad did surrender his chemical weapons but he also is still the president and therefore Syria is still in danger. Because proper justice has not been served, Mill’s
perspective is not valid in this case.
At this point of time, thousands of live have perished because of chemical weapons and Russia has somewhat solved this problem. But they have helped the
rest of the world but Syria.There their plan is similar to Bentham’s ideas and it benefits the majority of the people.