2008 Woodie Awards
Human beings as mass
Greg Woodward--Columbia Daily Spectator (Columbia U.)
Issue date: 2/19/03 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
(U-WIRE) NEW YORK - A vocal crop of ill-considered political opinions and campaigns concerning a war between the United States and Iraq has given me cause for concern as of late. It seems that the moral languages spoken by various parties that oppose a war have become mutually unintelligible. The premises in which various individuals and groups ground their opposition to a war seem to be morally incompatible with one another -- or at least so divergent from one another that an all inclusive anti-war movement would be precluded.
One argument follows that the United States must not go to war with Iraq because such a war will result in more terrorist attacks against Americans. By invading Iraq, the United States will stir up radical sentiment, which will create conditions favorable to al Qaeda recruiters. Our security as Americans will be compromised by a war. A war must be avoided because it will be bad for us -- that the aversion of a war might save the lives of Iraqi civilians is an incidental, if not unwelcome, goal.
Another argument follows that the United States must not go to war with Iraq because a war will result in the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians. A war must be opposed principally because of the devastation it will bring upon the Iraqi people -- that the aversion of a war might reduce the threat of terrorist attacks against Americans is not a primary consideration.
Simply put, the aversion of a war with Iraq will not necessarily result in both a decrease in the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans and in an improvement of the human rights situation of Iraqi civilians. A war might result in one, both, or neither outcome, and it is incumbent upon our ethical systems to consider the darker side of two aforementioned arguments. Can one employ both arguments on a whim, with the same flippancy by which posters are put up and torn down in Hamilton Hall? Is this reflective of a reliable ethical system? Is all this shifting about sincere?
One argument follows that the United States must not go to war with Iraq because such a war will result in more terrorist attacks against Americans. By invading Iraq, the United States will stir up radical sentiment, which will create conditions favorable to al Qaeda recruiters. Our security as Americans will be compromised by a war. A war must be avoided because it will be bad for us -- that the aversion of a war might save the lives of Iraqi civilians is an incidental, if not unwelcome, goal.
Another argument follows that the United States must not go to war with Iraq because a war will result in the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians. A war must be opposed principally because of the devastation it will bring upon the Iraqi people -- that the aversion of a war might reduce the threat of terrorist attacks against Americans is not a primary consideration.
Simply put, the aversion of a war with Iraq will not necessarily result in both a decrease in the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans and in an improvement of the human rights situation of Iraqi civilians. A war might result in one, both, or neither outcome, and it is incumbent upon our ethical systems to consider the darker side of two aforementioned arguments. Can one employ both arguments on a whim, with the same flippancy by which posters are put up and torn down in Hamilton Hall? Is this reflective of a reliable ethical system? Is all this shifting about sincere?