by: Dragonmage
First, I would like to adress this problem from the ethical standpoint that at first would most supposrt this endeavor: utilitarianism. This ethical system promotes the greatest good to the greatest number, even tacking on a quantitative unit, lots, as to how much good or harm the action causes. At first glance, utilitarianism would seem to support the war; after all, it was started not on ly to protect teh American people from terror but also to liberate the Iraqi people. However, on closer inspection of the facts, neither of these goals have been achieved. To begin, the Iraqi people are no more liberated now than under Saddam. They now live not in fear of Saddam, but instead in featr of the several rebel factions battling for control of the country. These factions have kept a stable government from being formed and now the Iraqis live without water or electricity. Medical care is far worse than it ever was under Saddam and looting runs rampant through the streets. So, in one fell swoop, there are over 2 million people in Baghdad alone who are harmed by the war. But it doesn't stop there. Even on the American side, we are suffering. World relations are at an all time low, especially in the Middle East where more terrorists are spawned. This hate of America that caused 9/11 is being fanned by the war in Iraq. Even in Iraq itself, the very country that we have just invaded, Al-Qaeda leaders are said to be gathering. This is an unprecedented occurence since a recent review has revealed that Iraq had previously ignored all requests for aid made by Al-Qaeda. All of these anti-American stirrings in the breeding pit of terrorism has created a wider, more zealous following that may create another 9/11 even as we try to prevent it. Therefore, the American people are even less safe now than they were before, especially with Osama Bin Laden still running free. Since this war has been shown to benefit no one, it therefore cannot be condoned under even the most liberal forms of utilitarianism which condones cold-blooded murder for the greater good.
Kantian ethics, of course, is the complete opposite of utilitarianism, but it still would be difficult to find a suitable argument that would allow the war to be supported under its doctrines. Kant's first requirement for an act to be ethical is that it would have to be universalized. This means, in terms of the war, that it would be perfectly acceptable to allow any country to invade another country based solely on the suspicion that the country was doing something wrong. There need be no investigations into the truth or even the backing of your allies before invading. Of course, this notion is ridiculous. If all countries practiced such police force, the world would fall into chaos and there would inevitably be a nuclear war. As a sub-point, the action under Kantian ethics must also be reversible but we have already had a taste of groups of people taking revenge into their own hands during 9/11 and we know that we certainly don't want that to happen again. Furthermore, Kant states that people should be recognized as being an end unto themselves, not just a means. Thus, the Bush administration's use of bombing Iraq as "revenge" when none of the hijakcers were Iraqi and Iraq harbored no Al-Qaeda camps is clearly shown as using the Iraqi people as a means to show the American people something was being done
The pride of our nation is or constitution and it is the most hallowed document our government has ever produced. However, ii along with the Bill of Rights are based on the Natural Laws as set by John Locke. These are life, liberty, and property. Since we desire to recreate Iraq so that they have a better government, who better to model it after than American itself? However, already we have violated the Iraqis Natural Rights. The first and main one is that to life. Simply put, we have taken away countless innocent Iraqi lives. Not to mention the hundreds of American lives lost everyday to the war. Second, we have taken away Iraqi property due to this war with out bombs and tanks. Granted, it could be said that we have given them liberty, but with liberty came a higher chance of having one or both of the other Natural Laws violated. If we add the other law that Thomas Jefferson added to our Decleration of Independence: the pursuit of happiness, then we have actually taken that away, as well. Iraqis no longer want us in their country and have made that clear through bombings and shoot-outs that have killed several. Yet, we still remain, causing them to distrust the new government which they view as an "American-puppet" as they call it, to be even further distrusted. Clearly they are anything but happy.
Finally, the most widely stated reason for war is based on the Will of God ethics. This states that whatever God wants is what you should do. This "crusade" type propoganda has been spread by the Bush administration throughout the war, with Bush even calling the war against terror a "Crusade". In essence, he states that this is a justified war because God would condone it. However, this is a vague argument at best since what God truly wants is never completely known for a fact. Faith is not faith when it is turned into fact. The closest one can come to knowing, or at least supposing God's will is by referring to the Bible, which in itself is imperfect as it was written by man. But beyond that, the only way that one can interpret the Bible's words is by using mortal judgement to determing their meaning. Thus, God's will cannot be truly determined as all fact. And even if you could, to claim that your faith was fact would be to eradicate faith, since faith is belief without fact.
However, there is one premise that I found that would support the war in Iraq as a moral endeavor. That is the premise that the only thing that is true is that which you can convince another of, but frankly, I'm not quite so gullible.
Back to Opinions -->