Contrary to my normal practice, I listened with at least half an ear to the Democratic candidates’ debate last night. I am away profoundly discouraged.
The question that got my dander up was about the assassination of Soleimani. After listening to mealy-mouthed answer after mealy-mouthed answer, I blurted out angrily, “They’re a bunch of consequentialists and I’m a deontologist!” My wife, puzzled, asked “What does that mean?” “It means I think you don’t murder people because it’s wrong.”
We are not at war with Iran. Iran has been provoking us for years. Some think that we have been provoking them for years, too. I think that is greatly exaggerated and the belief is largely the result of Soviet propaganda. Before we go to war with Iran we should declare war. If we are at war we should destroy their command and control facilities, not pursue and murder individual generals or leaders.
When you’re not at war, seeking out and killing someone is murder. Murder is wrong. You don’t sit around and argue whether murdering someone would be good for Middle East peace. You don’t do it because it’s wrong. It would be wrong for me. It was wrong for Trump. It would be wrong for Biden. It would be wrong for Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren. It’s wrong.
In my opinon consequentialists, people who believe that the morality of actions can only be judged based on their consequences, cannot be trusted with power. Under the right circumstances they would murder me, you, your family, or their own families. Everything depends on the consequences including the political consequences.
I also don’t think that we can survive as a nation or as a society with such beliefs.
Presumably, all of the above disqualifies me from being president, for which I thank God.
Soleimani was “murdered†after he “murdered†and maimed thousands of other enemies and innocents. Why doesn’t taking him out become more a preventative measure – an act akin to self defense – than murder? Sometimes moral equivalency arguments are complicated by details outside the scope of the viciousness of the act being judged.
Prevention isn’t self-defense. Where does it stop?
When we’re not at war, we don’t go around killing people. When we are at war, we should go to war to win.
Preventive war is immoral, too. Prevention and preemption are not the same thing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t he a military leader actively involved in planning in the Iraqi theater. An area for which the President has Congressional military authorization?
To me, the drone killings in Yemen do illustrate your point and raise my eyebrows as well. ( We’re only killing bad guys trust us.)
I think this post has a good point. Limited hostilities is not where the US is good at from an institutional or ethical standpoint.
It does beg the question — what would the appropriate response to the Iranian coordinated attempt to destroy the US embassy in Baghdad (and the attack on the US base killing a US contractor)? You could make an argument those were acts of war by Iran.
Dave, Iran declared war on us back in 1979 when the US embassy was seized. In addition their current constitution declares the country to be in a state of jihad that will only end when all unbelievers have submitted. Their government believes they are in a state of war with us; whether or not we accept that we are is on us.
I have made that argument myself but you should consider that there is a difference between an act of war and a state of war. In the absence of a declaration of war, which requires an act of Congress, or imminent threat, the president does not have the authority to make war on Iran. We think of ourselves as governed by the rule of law and as long as that’s the case there are procedures we must follow.
“Before we go to war with Iran we should declare war.â€
Of course we are at war. It’s just not a WWII style war.
“If we are at war we should destroy their command and control facilities, not pursue and murder individual generals or leaders.â€
That’s fighting the last war. And asking mother, may I is no way to win a war, but a good way to lose our people, one by one. Its hardly moral.
“Preventive war is immoral, too.”
Trying to explain morality to a Trump supporter? Good luck! (Remember that they live in a different world.)
Steve
Steve. What’s the benefit of being so snide and condescending? Your post actually makes the case why so many people are turning away from the democrat party.
You are an idiot!
“or imminent threat”
That being the attack on our embassy in Iraq for-shadowed by the Benghazi debacle.
Dont be such a pansy. You regularly imply that I hate the military, hate people of faith and I am a socialist. Then you cant tolerate a little sarcasm.
Steve
Steve, find a post where I have directly called you a socialist, implied you hate the military and people of faith. My comments usually reflect the agenda and policies encouraged by the democrat party, not you. I actually like you, and think you’re a smart guy. It’s your politics I’m not too crazy about!