I Support the Troops

[Philip_P]

Ok, moral theology 101 - you may never do evil that good may come of it. That means that no matter how good the results of an action, they never justify the act itself. In regard to the Iraq war, my position is that the pre-emptive invasion ordered by President Bush was immoral. Certainly no one will miss Saddam. Certainly the opportunity for democracy in Iraq is good. None of this justifies the invasion unless the invasion was justified to begin with. If it fails the initial test of jus ad bellum, the rest is irrelevant.

For better or worse, though, we blew right past this consideration and now we’re in Iraq. What now? At best, democracy really will take root in Iraq. It will have been bought at a high price – the loss or respect in the world community, several years of violence, mayhem, and death for the Iraqi people, thousands of our own citizens killed, the creation of deep and lasting mistrust of American power in the region which will hamper our foreign policy for decades to come. But maybe that’s ok. The war has not advanced our national interests, but maybe my country has to “take one for the team” to give Iraq a chance at democracy. Forgive me if I’m less than thrilled about this.

Perhaps, though, the opposite will happen. For all the talk about having freed millions, this is still more a hope than an accomplished fact. Iraq is not yet a democracy; it’s barely even a state at this point. There’s a very good chance the whole mess will disintegrate into civil war and that someone worse than Saddam will step into the power vacuum. Our intervention could very well have made things far worse.

So you see, it seems any way we turn, it’s the wrong choice. You want me to desist from criticizing our efforts. Why, so we can make the same mistakes next time? Such silence would hardly be patriotic. A patriot cares about the future of his country – we need to speak out so that Iraq is not our future.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

I don’t understand how an army beating back sadistic thugs and thieving terrorists is analogous to a man beating his wife. Can someone explain it to me?

Do we need to know why the man beats his wife to conclude that the beating is wrong? Suppose the wife likes to kill puppies and terrorize small children in her spare time. Does that make the slightest bit of difference in the morality of wife-beating?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Ok, moral theology 101 - you may never do evil that good may come of it.

D-oh! I don’t think so. Take a look at the principle of double effect.

 

[Richardols]

Philip P:

A patriot cares about the future of his country – we need to speak out so that Iraq is not our future.

And that we will not become embroiled in another Iraq some place else in the world.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Do we need to know why the man beats his wife to conclude that the beating is wrong? Suppose the wife likes to kill puppies and terrorize small children in her spare time. Does that make the slightest bit of difference in the morality of wife-beating?

You have evaded the question. An analogy has been put forward between wife beating and thug beating. Please justify the analogy.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

D-oh! I don’t think so. Take a look at the principle of double effect.

Double effect refers to undesired consequences. The initial act itself must still be just.

Under double effect, a good act may have undesired bad consequences. This is very different from trying to justify a bad act with good consequences. God can bring good out of evil, but this does not mean we can therefore do evil.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Ok, moral theology 101 - you may never do evil that good may come of it. That means that no matter how good the results of an action, they never justify the act itself. In regard to the Iraq war, my position is that the pre-emptive invasion ordered by President Bush was immoral. Certainly no one will miss Saddam. Certainly the opportunity for democracy in Iraq is good. None of this justifies the invasion unless the invasion was justified to begin with. If it fails the initial test of jus ad bellum, the rest is irrelevant.

You ever study the principal of double effect?

Freeing 25 million people from butchery is certainly a just action.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

thestickman:

You ever study the principal of double effect?

Yep.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

You have evaded the question. An analogy has been put forward between wife beating and thug beating. Please justify the analogy.

The wife beating was meant as an example of a bad question, wherein one must accept the premise under dispute in order to answer the question. This is called begging the question.

Regarding Iraq, I maintain that the invasion itself was wrong. Thus a question such as “do you want us to succeed in Iraq” is begging the question, as it forces me to accept the premise that yes, we should be in Iraq.

 

[thestickman]

Ani Ibi:

Yep.

Freeing 25 million people from butchery is certainly a just action.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

You ever study the principal of double effect?

Freeing 25 million people from butchery is certainly a just action.

It’s the invasion that is the act under scrutiny here. The “freeing” is a consequence, not an act. If lining up all the Catholic in America and killing every third one would free 100 million people, would the act be justified? No, because the killing is wrong.

You’re confusing act with consequences.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Yes, this means I disagree with invasions in order to install a more favorable government (the alternative I prefer is isolation and pressure, as worked in the Cold War).

Like the UN intended? While the world was busy isolating Iraq, France and Russia were in there with all four feet.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Double effect refers to undesired consequences. The initial act itself must still be just.

Under double effect, a good act may have undesired bad consequences. This is very different from trying to justify a bad act with good consequences. God can bring good out of evil, but this does not mean we can therefore do evil.

This is an oversimplification of the principle of double effect. Please apply the principle of double effect and discuss.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

It’s the invasion that is the act under scrutiny here. The “freeing” is a consequence, not an act. If lining up all the Catholic in America and killing every third one would free 100 million people, would the act be justified? No, because the killing is wrong.

You’re confusing act with consequences.

It’s the CUTTING that is the act under scrutiny here. The “curing” of the cancer is a consequence, not an act. If lining up all the Catholic in America and killing every third one would free 100 million people, would the act be justified? No, because surgery is wrong.

You’re confusing act with consequenceshttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Richardols]

Ani Ibi:

Like the UN intended? While the world was busy isolating Iraq, France and Russia were in there with all four feet.

As Philip said, it’s the invasion that’s under scrutiny, not the positions of various actors.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

It’s the invasion that is the act under scrutiny here. The “freeing” is a consequence, not an act.

That’s the funniest spin I’ve read since the “depends on the meaning of is” nonsense. Freeing anyone is an action.

If lining up all the Catholic in America and killing every third one would free 100 million people, would the act be justified? No, because the killing is wrong.

That analogy has nothing in common with our removal of Saddam from power. Zip. Nada.

You’re confusing act with consequences.

Your argument might be valid were it not for the Congressional Resolution giving Bush the OK to use military force to remove Saddam from power. All of our reasons for removing Saddam from power were laid out plainly.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Do we need to know why the man beats his wife to conclude that the beating is wrong? Suppose the wife likes to kill puppies and terrorize small children in her spare time. Does that make the slightest bit of difference in the morality of wife-beating?

Yes.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Your argument might be valid were it not for the Congressional Resolution giving Bush the OK to use military force to remove Saddam from power. All of our reasons for removing Saddam from power were laid out plainly.

The validity and morality on an action has nothing to do with the number of people who ride the bandwagon. It only means that Bush had support for his invasion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

As Philip said, it’s the invasion that’s under scrutiny, not the positions of various actors.

This is what Philip said:

“(the alternative I prefer is isolation and pressure, as worked in the Cold War).”

Having said that, his statement comes under scrutiny. Are you suggesting that we examine the invasion in a vacuum, that is without examining any of the factors contributing to that decision? If that is so, then presumably you would be saying something like this:

Invasion is always wrong, always unjustifiable.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

The validity and morality on an action has nothing to do with the number of people who ride the bandwagon.

Not according to the CCC:

[2309](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2309.htm’) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

***The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

---

Hmmm that would be Congress and and President, right?