Debates
19 Aug 05
21 Aug 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour post brings up a number of factors that are surely pertinent to making any decision.
Your initial question is nonspecific, so I'll assume we're talking about Iraq and Hussein.
Also, you're comparing only the value of democracy vs. innocent lives lost. There are many other important issues involved. For example - the increased anger among the Arabs in the region against the U.S. and Western civilization, etc. Let's throw out ...[text shortened]... ng? Who is to do the invading? Or again, is that a non-issue because it's democracy vs. deaths?
So let's assume that all the other factors are equal, and that the democracy brought about is reasonably fully-fledged, like that of a European country such as France or England.
Also, let's keep to speaking about innocent civilians, as members of the army can be regarded as at least somewhat culpable for their own deaths.
Now, one might argue, in the absense of full specification of all relevant factors, one can't say how many innocent lives a desirable democracy is worth. Fair enough.
But on the other hand, when making a decision whether or not to go to war, one can never specify the precise impact of that decision, one way or another. One has to work with vague probabilities. So let's isolate two factors among many, assuming everything else equal, and enquire into their relative value: democracy and human lives.
Proponents of the war, you will have noticed, bang on about democracy, whereas opponents bang on about loss of innocent human life. The first is a possible good effect of prosecuting a war, the latter a bad one. So, what's the trade-off, given that you can specify the number of people killed?
Let's be more specific then. All else equal, how many innocent human lives are worth sacrificing indirectly to bring about a flourishing democracy in a country, say, of twenty million?
(a) Zero?
(b) One?
(c) Twenty million?
A proponent of the war, it seems to me, must pick a value between (b) and (c). So where is it? I will be satisfied even with a rough range (e.g., 500,000).
I am struck by the fact that proponents of the war appear to be averse to answering such highly relevant questions without evasion.
23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou've clarified what the quality of the democracy; something like that of France's or England's. How about the quality of the dictatorship to be removed? I guess it would be something like Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq.
Your post brings up a number of factors that are surely pertinent to making any decision.
So let's assume that all the other factors are equal, and that the democracy brought about is reasonably fully-fledged, like that of a European country such as France or England.
Also, let's keep to speaking about innocent civilians, as members of the army ...[text shortened]... ents of the war appear to be averse to answering such highly relevant questions without evasion.
Hmm. This is a hard call. I was never in favor of the war as a means to change Iraq's government to a dictatorship; I was in favor of taking out a threat to the U.S. Maybe I'm not your target audience. I keep thinking about this question though; if I could magically change some dictatorship like that of North Korea to a democracy like that of England, how many innocent lives would I be willing to pay for that? My immediate response is that I can't make that call without doing way more research into the issue, but even in my ignorance, as you say, I should be able to come up with some boundaries. Would I exchange one innocent life for that change of government? Man! I don't know enough about the quality of life under the dictatorship to make that call. As a U.S. citizen I guess I know what it's like to live in a modern democracy.
I guess my answer is; at this time I am unwilling to personally exchange any innocent life for that government change. I am too ignorant to make that call.
A proponent of the war, it seems to me, must pick a value between (b) and (c).
That's not necessarily true. People may favor the war for other reasons. I favored the invasion, though not the occupation.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHi Thousand,
You've clarified what the quality of the democracy; something like that of France's or England's. How about the quality of the dictatorship to be removed? I guess it would be something like Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq.
Hmm. This is a hard call. I was never in favor of the war as a means to change Iraq's government to a dictatorship; I wa ...[text shortened]... People may favor the war for other reasons. I favored the invasion, though not the occupation.
Thanks for you earnest response. I think many would feel similarly: it's hard to make that call. However, just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not possible or not desirable. My point is that, in decising whether to prosecute (or support) a war, this is the type of calculation that one is obliged to make.
My own answer is that, unless it is beyond reasonable doubt that a war designed to create democracy would ultimately lead to far fewer deaths and far less misery than would otherwise have occurred, it definitely isn't moral to prosecute the war. In the case of the Gulf war, this wasn't known beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the war was definitely immoral. Even if this condition were met, a war might still not be moral: it's necessary but not sufficient condition. I worry about whether acts that kill people, even if they lead to more living, may still often be immoral. You can't kill one person to harnass two kidneys to save two patients: that's plain murder. Can you carry out a war that involves accidentally killing 1000 innocents even if leads to 2000 innocents later being saved? Maybe not necessarily.
You are correct that one could favour a war for other reasons in addition to creating democracy, the reason I'm focusing on (because that's the one that currently favoured by proponents). However, whatever reason you have for favouring the war, the same hard call has to be made: is that realizing value worth trading innocent lives for? And if it is, how many, assuming that you realize that value with certainty?
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt all depends on how much you value human life and how much you value democracy.
In other words, how valuable is it to bring about democracy in terms of human lives?
To me a human life is the most valuable thing in the world, and no one has the right to end a humans life except for the person himself. So to me it would not be worth a single life. (if the person did not choose to die himself)
But more importantly, forcing democracy upon a country in the way a dictator forces his beliefs upon his people is contrary to democracy itself.
Democracy must homegrow.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeMy own answer is that, unless it is beyond reasonable doubt that a war designed to create democracy would ultimately lead to far fewer deaths and far less misery than would otherwise have occurred, it definitely isn't moral to prosecute the war.
Hi Thousand,
Thanks for you earnest response. I think many would feel similarly: it's hard to make that call. However, just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not possible or not desirable. My point is that, in decising whether to prosecute (or support) a war, this is the type of calculation that one is obliged to make.
My own answer is that, ...[text shortened]... innocent lives for? And if it is, how many, assuming that you realize that value with certainty?
I'd lessen the restrictions a bit. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" suggests something like 95% probability or more. I'd go with a "probably" rule instead; >50% probability. Also, it wouldn't have to lead to "far fewer" anything necessarily; I'd say the deaths are irrelevant and as long as misery is decreased and/or happiness increased at all the action (war) is moral.
Theoretically, I'd choose the result which had the highest happiness expectation value, equating suffering with negative happiness.
You can't kill one person to harnass two kidneys to save two patients: that's plain murder.
I agree, but not because two lives are not more valuable than one life. The reason this is immoral is that it degrades peoples' feelings of security; people are no longer safe from murder, and this adds fear to everyone's lives and guilt as well for being the cause of another's death.
However, whatever reason you have for favouring the war, the same hard call has to be made: is that realizing value worth trading innocent lives for? And if it is, how many, assuming that you realize that value with certainty?
Well, the reason I supported the war was to increase the security of my country. How many innocent lives is this worth? Well, take the population of the U.S., arbritrarily decide how much safer we'd be, then equate the value of that safeness to innocent human life. That's how I'd have to make the call I guess. Let me think about it.
24 Aug 05
My ill thought out response would be that no lives are worth it. I don't see any nation has the right to impose its own values on another.
I guess you could argue that any system of government is "democracy" as a government cannot function without the support of the people. The speed of collapse of governments enjoying support through the fear or gullability of the people seems to be increasing.
24 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholex + (x/10)
Suppose you could militarily attach a country where tyranny reigned and thereby bring about democracy there.
How many people, particularly innocent civilains, would it be permissible to kill IN EXCESS of the number of people who would otherwise have died if regime change had not been brought about?
In other words, how valuable is it to bring about ...[text shortened]... bers, that could constitute a moral turning point for a war supporter. Where is it, numerically?
27 Aug 05
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholehere is my take on it:
I agree. At the moment, Iraqi democracy is partial at best, nonexistent at worst.
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that democracy IS the reuslt of the war against a country. What, exactly, is the acceptable body count of innocents?
The acceptable number of casualties is inversely proportional
to the amount of media coverage available. Do you really think
the generals in charge give a crap about how much "collateral"
damage is caused?
Thus you have maybe a million casualties in Viet nam when coverage
was minimal and only a few thousand (not sure of exact numbers)
in Iraq where there was intense media coverage.