I don't think you can apply a law of averages to moral opinion.
But that was not the declared aim of the war was it? The declared aim was to eliminate a situation that the entire United Nations, almost all heads of state throughout the free world, all the Arab nations, the entire Clinton and Bush congresses, etc. etc. etc. believed to be imminent and dangerous to millions, to the stability of the region as well as to a major portion of the world's oil supplies. It was only later that the mission changed to 'helping Iraq achieve a more democratic form of government.' And remember that this too was very popular at first. Even the major leftwing news media was suggesting that Bush was right and it was having the effect the administration hoped for and generating winds of liberty throughout much of the Arab world.
And within all that much good happened and much bad happened. And whether it was worth it is where moral relativism comes in.
As for the deaths, why were the deaths in Iraq, most of which were due to Arab on Arab violence, seen as more morally reprehensible than the 50 to 60 MILLION deaths in WWII which was and remains the most deadly war in the history of the world? Why are not the Germans and Japanese and Italians and other Axis members constantly accused of being responsible for all those deaths? Again moral relativism is a factor in the evaluation of all that.
And then there is the ongoing controversy as to whether the millions of both Allied and Japanese lives that are believed to have been spared by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified the carnage on the ground those bombs created. More moral relativism comes into play.
I agree mostly.
The death level in WWII was a lot less than the Mongol invasions though. Even the Boxer rebellion was more destructive to life.
I think the thing is that to be morally OK you are expected to do the best job you can do. So the deaths of civilians caused by the Allies in WWII are OK because we did the best we could do in the circumstances and knowing what we did. (I'll have to gloss over the British area bombing campaign here.)
In Iraq we did not do the best we could have done. We failed to build a decent state. This happened because the US administration was internally divided and not well led. That's the failure. Failing like that is not excusable when there was a lot of good advice and opportunity to do it right.
I don't think so, because both sides are claiming to be inclusive of perspectives in their evaluation. Both sides are claiming objectivity, neither concedes relativism.
`
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.
I've used the word "immoral" to describe the US invasion of Iraq. It fits the academic venue but is what is considered "moral" an absolute value? Those that decided to invade Iraq certainly did not. If that is the case, then where does one draw the line as to what is moral or immoral?
`
i think it's a bit of an simplification to assume that overwhelming force can accomplish stated goals of bringing freedom and democracy. If that was ever the serious intention of the war in Iraq, which is also debatable. I'll try to tie this point to the topic of moral relativism.
You can't compare the world wars which took place in Europe, a region made of largely industrialized, civilized technological societies which already had advanced political systems, advances in education, liberty and wealth to wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. First of all, islamic nations which simply means, their fundamental value system is totally different. To them westernization itself is anathema, IE repugnant. It is seen as sinful. Second of all, the people are much more used to living in hardship, living under totalitarian rule in a theocracy. The choice of living in hardship in this life, or conceding to western liberalism and its supposed merits but spending eternity in lakes of fire seems self-evident. This is where relativism comes in, in a way. I can take the harsh life, suffering and cruelty that war brings if I already live in a society where life is cheap, where poverty is normal. OTOH do the same to people here and we cave in quickly. We don't do well if you take away our convenience stores, central heating and flush toilets.
The people of Iraq or even more, Afghanistan could not be bombed into the stone ages because, they are already living in the stone ages. Look also to Vietnam, no amount of carpet-bombing could achieve stated goals.
To me the dichotomy is whether it is even right to use war as an instrument of liberating a third party, in other words war imposed by complete outsiders to bring perceived blessings of a foreign system, by annihilating their cities, killing their families. How is it really different than what any empire has done in the past in expanding their colonies? Does it make sense to bring them death and destruction at such an intense level, gambling on the hope that it shall bring a wonderful future someday, vs. allowing a moderately intolerant, authoritarian society to exist where there is some steady level of violence? Which of us then is not violent?
Did more people die in the Mongol invasions than in WWII? While there are few records to refer to, historians believe the death toll to probably be in the millions but there is no way it equaled anything close to the 40 to 50 million military and civilian deaths related to WWII. And the deaths recorded from the Boxer Rebellion numbered in the many thousands, but not millions.
The Mongol Invasion and the Destruction of Baghdad | Lost Islamic HistoryMore important than what Genghis Khan conquered was how he conquered. He deliberately used terror as a weapon of war. If a city he was besieging gave up without a fight, its people would usually be spared but would have to go under Mongol control. If the city fought against the Mongols, everyone, including civilians, would be massacred. This reign of terror is a large part of why he was such a successful conqueror. People were more willing to give up than to suffer massacres at his hand. For example, when he besieged the city of Herat, in present-day Afghanistan, he killed over 1,600,000 people
Iraq did surrender unconditionally. Or even more was simply swept away and a new nation created. Having the enemy army occupy all of your territory, using your government buildings and arresting your leader is generally considered complete conquest.The only way nation building had any chance to succeed in Iraq, or has any chance to succeed anywhere, is via overwhelming force that brings a nation to unconditional surrender. That was how we brought Germany, Italy, and Japan to their knees and literally FORCED them to adopt democratic forms of government that would be peaceful in the world community. As a result, all three are peaceful nations in the world and good friends and allies of the United States with good will between all the peoples involved.
We did not have the stomach for it or the support of the people behind it to do such a thing in Iraq. Therefore the effort was doomed to failure from the get go. Every time the USA has gone to war since WWII and has pulled its punches and eventually just stopped fighting the war instead of winning it, we have left conditions in as bad or worse shape as they were before and we have made permanent enemies who remain our enemies or at least are less than friends today.
So we have the dichotomy within moral relativism here too. Is the moral thing to fight a war with overwhelming force and bring the enemy to unconditional surrender so that justice and liberty can be imposed? Even if that means far greater collateral damage in the effort? Or is it better to reduce collateral damage and drag it out over a decade or more without achieving any permanent success of any kind?
The Mongol Invasion and the Destruction of Baghdad | Lost Islamic HistoryThe population of Iraq is said to have yet to recover from the vast killing that went on when the Mongols decided to make room for their horses to graze and killed the peasants. That it was the peasants irrigating the land which made it green did not occur to them until they had killed over 50 million with only 3 million left. this census was conducted by the Mongols themselves by counting the living and the heads of the dead.Iraq did surrender unconditionally. Or even more was simply swept away and a new nation created. Having the enemy army occupy all of your territory, using your government buildings and arresting your leader is generally considered complete conquest.Doing the peace right is just as morally required as doing the war right.
`
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.
I've used the word "immoral" to describe the US invasion of Iraq. It fits the academic venue but is what is considered "moral" an absolute value? Those that decided to invade Iraq certainly did not. If that is the case, then where does one draw the line as to what is moral or immoral?
`
Hey, it's not our fault you provided a quote with incorrect understanding. The opposite of moral relativism is not moral absolutism, it's moral objectivity, as explained herein.
There's no such thing as absolute anything. Anyone who believes so is a moron.
Relativistic morality is no morality. If you can change your morals based on your current feelings, then you really don't have morals at all, since what is moral today can be immoral tomorrow. Real morality comes from an objective standard, not a subjective one. Choosing an external standard to follow and sticking to that standard is true morality. Internal (relative) standards are pretty much no standards, since you can change them at a whim and be moral in your mind no matter what you do. People need external standards in order to understand right and wrong. In the case of Iraq, we stopped a nation that was killing well over 25,000 of it's own citizens a year in order to silence dissent, we stopped the massive destruction of the Euphrates River wetlands (done to drive out the "swamp Muslims living there who opposed the Baathists), se stopped a nation that was invading it's neighbors on a regular basis, we stopped a nation that was openly funding terrorism form continuing that action. By any honest and objective standard, what we did was moral if your moral standard is that protecting innocent people from death and torture is a moral act. But what you and many like you have done is to choose to ignore that kind of standard and apply a subjective one wherein you can decide that only the selected perspective you want to apply is the legitimate one to look at. It is an relativistic standard that you and many others are willing to change fit your current desires instead of having a standard and sticking to it. A few decades back, there were a lot of people demanding that we protect innocents from being killed and then we decided to actually DO just that and those same people are now opposing that very thing that they used to demand. They changed their morals to fit the situation. Innocents were still being killed, but now it's immoral for no reason than someone decided that today taking steps to protect innocent people is no longer a moral act, but an immoral one.
Well said. We all choose our moral standard, but a trust-worthy moral standard needs to objective, not subjective. Subjective morality is no morality since it can be changed for no reason whatsoever. We then get into the hair-splitting exercise of choosing a different set standards to fit our situation, but that's no different than having a subjective standard.
Subjective morality is no morality? That's pure silliness. A morality that is subjective is still a morality, it's just a subjective one.
Nice job taking one line out of context.... My point was made clear in my prior posts, but you chose to ignore thatand just respond to one part. But I'll indulge you and explain once again:
A relative morality allows one to change their mind about what is and isn't moral. If you can change your standard at a whim, then you really have no standard, just whatever floats your boat at the moment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?