An Ethical Dilemma
January 5th, 2007 by Stephen
It is common for defenders of the invasion of Iraq to say that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who was killing his people, and it was right to put a stop to this.
Even assuming that invasion was the only way to stop this (a case that is far from proven), we arrive at an interesting moral dilemma.
I expect it is possible to build a moral case that
one may intervene militarily where the objective is to defend those
who would be victims of the intended target, although this immediately
suffers from this objection: as we know that non combatants
(civilians) will die, then who are we to choose *which* civilians to
die? In saving Jones do I kill Smith? If so, then will not the family
of Smith be tempted to say that it would have been better that no
intervention had occurred? And will not we have to say that Saddam (or
whoever) would have been responsible for the death of Jones, but we
are responsible for the death of Smith?
What if we save Lewis and Jones, but kill Smith? Are two lives worth
more than one? Can we weigh up pros and cons of a military action in
terms of the lives of *others*?
And here is an interesting point from human psychology: imagine that there is a run away train hurtling down a track. You can control the points and send the train down a branch where it will crash and kill one person or a branch where it will crash and kill 10. Which way will you send the train?
Most people reply that they will send it down the branch where one person dies. But recast the scenario: There is a runaway train with 10 people on board heading for a precipice and a very large man standing on an overlooking bridge. you can save the people by pushing the man off the bridge into the path of the train.
In this example, people hesitate – because they must specifically kill the one to save the many. They must act to push the man from the bridge. We recognise in the latter scenario that the life of the onlooker is not ours to give.
So too in Iraq and elsewhere. The lives of the people of other countries are not ours to spend on political aims – however noble.
It seems that this argument would have prevented US entrance into WWII, at least in the European theatre. It wasn’t Washington being bombed in the Blitz. Who were we to kill Schmidt in order to save Smith (never mind Goldberg)?
I’m not, by the way, suggesting unqualified support for the present war. I simply think that your argument is a bit too broad.
Well the US did not enter the war until they were attacked, and the following day Germany declared war on the US. Many have argued that the declaration of war was engineered, but based on the fact that the war was one of defence, the above need not apply.
Should the US have entered the war even if there had been no such declaration? That is where we get into the thorny issue above.
The UK was not attacked, but issued an ultimatum to Germany not to invade Poland – that an attack on Poland would be considered an attack on the UK. Could such an ultimatum be justified?
We could argue that it was justified because the intention was to prevent any war and loss of life – but that for the ultimatum to be taken seriously, the promise must be meant.
But there is more to the argument of course. Does there come a point where inaction is as reprehensible as action? Could we have stood by and watched as Hitler systematically killed the Jews, if we were not already at war? Could we have said we would stand by the Jewish people in the same way that we stood by Poland?
My title was “an ethical dilemma”, and the dilemma is that there is both an argument for action and inaction.
Although in the case of Iraq, Saddam actually met every ultimatum given to him, so that argument certainly does not apply.