It seems to me that people who advocated the invasion of Iraq and dismissed casualties as a price worth paying were overdeploying Utilitarian (The greatest good for the greatest number) reasoning.
Utilitarianism has its place but I feel that the blanket application of Utilitarianism can be dangerous and can lead to great evils (as I believe the war in Iraq to be).
Before I carry on I would like to present an analogy which I think neatly identifies some of the problems with a blanket application of Utilitarian Principles to all moral dilemmas.
A beggar and a doctor find themselves (by a convoluted set of circumstances which aren’r really important) stuck on a raft at sea. Neither of them can swim. The raft is flimsy and the odds of it reaching shore bearing the weight of two people are slim to none. However, if there was only one person on the raft then it would most likely reach dry ground.
To make this interesting let’s make our doctor a world famous heart surgeon, a man who saves lives for a living. He has the potential to save the lives of at least a hundred patients before he retires. His expertise is such that only a handful of other doctors can perform the life saving operations and make the instant expert diagnoses that he can.
Our beggar on the other hand, most likely wouldn’t save any lives. If he survived he would have to go back to living on the streets. He may pull himself up, he may not.
Using utilitarian reasoning (specifically what I believe to be the same sort of utilitarian reasoning that proponents of the ‘Liberation’ argument apply) the doctor would be perfectly justified in pushing the beggar into the water to drown to increase the chances of his own survival. It would be the most moral thing he could do in the situation.
However, in spite of the fact that, objectively, the heart surgeon can do more good with the rest of his life than the beggar could ever hope to, the doctor has still committed murder.
In much the same way, the act of invading Iraq and killing innocent civilians to save more innocent civilians is still an act of mass murder.
To me (and I don’t mean to be disrespectful but I think this is the clearest way to explain it) proponents of the ‘Liberation’ argument are like the woman in the old joke who agrees to cheat on her husband and sleep with another guy for a million dollars. The guy then offers her five bucks. She slaps him and says “What sort of woman do you think I am?” The guy retorts “Well, we’ve already established that, now we’re just haggling over the price”.
In other words, what they don’t get is that a whore is a whore. The pay off may make the immoral act more understandable but it doesn’t change the label, nor does it change its connotations.
The bottom line is that we put the civilians of Iraq in harms way by invading. The Iraqi people, 40% of whom are under the age of 14, were unable to make their conformed consent to take the risk of being put in harms way. I think that for the Iraqi dead, the Iraqi’s maimed, widowed and orphaned by our bombs the solution was worse than the problem and we didn’t have the right to make that decision for them.
The application of Utilitarian reasoning to this situation was misguided.
Thoughts?