War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill
John Stewart Mill, the father of utilitarianism, would have never been in favor of all wars. He would have looked at the purpose of the war, the positives and negatives of the war, and the potential outcomes of the war. Based on his analysis of the war, he would determine if the war was just or not.
Of course war is not the ugliest of things. The power of "belief in cause" is undeniable and necessary for the fullness of humanity. Regarding the war in Iraq, I believe Mill would have deemed it unjust - not worth fighting for - because of its overall and eventual destructive nature to humanity.
Utilitarianism is almost mathematical in its understanding of morality. Does the "good" outweigh the "bad."
Has the war in Iraq been objectively good or bad? I believe that although some good has come about as a result of the war, the war has created an overall negative atmosphere in the Middle East. This level of negativity was unseen in the Middle East until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. This invasion propelled Al Qaeda to set up bases in Iraq, causing unnecessary terror in the region.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
This statement is true when it is taken literally. The person described in this statement is either a narcissist or a gigantic pussy.
I believe that the three remaining candidates in the presidential election have demonstrated a will to fight. However, I wonder if our current president would fit this description. He does have many financial connections to big oil companies, and Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate his father. which would explain the "personal safety." Has he decided to invade North Korea or Iran, who have shown similar threats as Iraq in 2003? Did he decide to invade Sudan, which has seen genocidal warfare that caused far greater destruction than Saddam's chemical attacks in Northern Iraq? The answer, of course is no. So what has President Bush done that if worth fighting for, that is more important than his personal safety? Perhaps the only chance of Bush being free is unless he is "made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
From the Kansas City Star.
Posts
3 comments:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill
John Stewart Mill, the father of utilitarianism, would have never been in favor of all wars. He would have looked at the purpose of the war, the positives and negatives of the war, and the potential outcomes of the war. Based on his analysis of the war, he would determine if the war was just or not.
Of course war is not the ugliest of things. The power of "belief in cause" is undeniable and necessary for the fullness of humanity. Regarding the war in Iraq, I believe Mill would have deemed it unjust - not worth fighting for - because of its overall and eventual destructive nature to humanity.
Utilitarianism is almost mathematical in its understanding of morality. Does the "good" outweigh the "bad."
Has the war in Iraq been objectively good or bad? I believe that although some good has come about as a result of the war, the war has created an overall negative atmosphere in the Middle East. This level of negativity was unseen in the Middle East until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. This invasion propelled Al Qaeda to set up bases in Iraq, causing unnecessary terror in the region.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
This statement is true when it is taken literally.
The person described in this statement is either a narcissist or a gigantic pussy.
I believe that the three remaining candidates in the presidential election have demonstrated a will to fight. However, I wonder if our current president would fit this description. He does have many financial connections to big oil companies, and Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate his father. which would explain the "personal safety."
Has he decided to invade North Korea or Iran, who have shown similar threats as Iraq in 2003?
Did he decide to invade Sudan, which has seen genocidal warfare that caused far greater destruction than Saddam's chemical attacks in Northern Iraq?
The answer, of course is no. So what has President Bush done that if worth fighting for, that is more important than his personal safety?
Perhaps the only chance of Bush being free is unless he is "made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
I agree with the "gigantic pussy" part.
So when then is war justified?
P.S. - Mill also wrote one of the founding text's on modern liberalism, "On Liberty" (Wiki) That's what make his quote so ironically wonderful.
Post a Comment