|
Faithful husband, soccer dad,
basset owner, and former cowboy
Return to TboggHomePage
FELLOW TRAITORS
*The Nether-Count*
100 Monkeys Typing
Ain't No Bad Dude
Alicublog
Americablog
American Leftist
Attytood (Will Bunch)
Bad Attitudes
Balloon Juice
Better Inhale Deeply
Bitch Ph.D
Bloggy
Bob Harris
Brilliant At Breakfast
BusyBusyBusy
Byzantium's Shores
Creek Running North
Crooked Timber
Crooks and Liars
Cursor
Daily Kos
Dependable Renegade
David Ehrenstein
Democratic Veteran
Dohiyi Mir
Down With Tyranny
Echidne of the Snakes
Edicts of Nancy
Elayne Riggs
Eschaton (Atrios)
Ezra Klein
Failure Is Impossible
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
First Draft
Freewayblogger
The Garance
The Group News Blog
Guano Island
Hairy Fish Nuts
Hammer of the Blogs
Hullabaloo(Digby)
I Am TRex
If I Ran the Zoo
I'm Not One To Blog
Interesting Times
James Wolcott
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
King of Zembla
Kung Fu Monkey
Lance Mannion
Lawyers Guns and Money
Lean Left
Liberal Oasis
Main & Central
Majikthise
Making Light (Nielsen Hayden)
Mark Kleiman
Martini Revolution
MaxSpeak
MF Blog
MyDD
Needlenose
The Next Hurrah
Nitpicker
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Norbizness
Norwegianity
Oliver Willis
One Good Move
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
Pharyngula
Political Animal(K.Drum)
The Poorman
Progressive Gold
Right Hand Thief
Rising Hegemon
Roger Ailes
Rude Pundit
Rumproast
Sadly, No
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
Sisyphus Shrugged
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
SteveAudio
Suburban Guerilla
TalkLeft
The American Street
The Left Coaster
The Road To Surfdom
The Sideshow
The Talking Dog
The Talent Show
Tom Tomorrow
Tom Watson
Whiskeyfire
UggaBugga
Wampum
Wonkette
World O'Crap
TOSS ME
A BONE
Amazon Wish List
SOURCES
MSNBC
CNN
The Washington Post
Media Matters
The New York Times
The Guardian
Yahoo News
Salon
The Raw Story
Common Dreams
Media Transparency
The Nation
Alternet
Joe Conason
Talking Points Memo
THE VAST WASTELAND
Captain Corndog & Friends
Cheerleaders Gone Spazzy
80% True
Corner of Mediocrity and Banality
Village Idiots Central
Darwin's Waiting Room
News for Mouthbreathers
Mailbox
Your e-mail may be reprinted sans name and e-mail address. Think about how stupid you want to appear.
Blogroll Me!
Site Feed
|
Thursday, June 05, 2003
Justification? We don' need no steekin' justification
Keith Burgess-JacksonJ.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Humanities and "logic policeman' explains it all to you. And remember, he's a "philosopher". Or at least an associate one:
Let me illustrate how these distinctively philosophical skills might be used to advance public debate. I have heard it said repeatedly, in the pages of the New York Times, the Guardian and elsewhere, that the Bush administration "lied to" or "misled" the public about its motive(s) for going to war in Iraq. (Not "against" Iraq, but "in" Iraq. It was a war against Saddam Hussein's regime, not against the Iraqi people.)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true - that the Bush administration told a big whopping lie about its motive(s). Does this show that the war was unjustified? Not at all. First, motives are not reasons. A badly motivated person can do the right thing (by accident, as it were), just as a well-motivated person can do the wrong thing. That this is so is reflected in a number of common sayings, such as "It's the thought that counts," "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." The first two suggest that the act is wrong but well-meaning, the third that the act is right in spite of its poor or improper motivation.
Second, there can be more than one motive for a given action. The classic example of multiple motivation is a merchant giving correct change to a customer. This can be done both to do the right thing (by the merchant's standards) and to get the customer to come back (a case of self-interest). Morality and self-interest do not always diverge! Suppose, then, that President Bush had a disreputable motive (fill in your own; make it the very worst) in going to war. Does this show that he had no reputable (respectable, defensible) motive? No. That would be fallacious.
Third, suppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush.
[snip]
As far as the justification of war in Iraq is concerned, President Bush's motives are irrelevant. Why, then, has the public debate focused so sharply, to the point of harping, on his motives? Why the constant refrain to the effect that the war is "about oil" or a way to "finish what his father started" or an attempt to "distract attention from the economy"? I have racked my brain for an answer to this question. I believe it is one part hatred of the president and all that he stands for, and one part confusion. The philosopher, qua philosopher, can deal with the latter. Perhaps a psychotherapist will have to be called in to deal with the former.
The important thing to remember is that, although you may hate George W Bush for the wrong reasons, it doesn't really matter. It can still be the right thing.
|
|
