John Stuart Mill's view of the Iraqi War - Term Paper Example

 John Stuart Mill's view of the Iraqi War according to his book “On Liberty” Pity the planet, all joy gone from this sweet volcanic cone; peace to our children when they fall in small war on the heels of small war-until the end of time to police the earth, a ghost orbiting forever lost in our monotonous sublime. Lowell, Robert. Near the Ocean. Introduction When we talk about ethical principles of war, it may seem weird, because the question arises if there is any ethics in killing some people in favor of other people? Can any material possessions cost human lives? The answer to both of these questions is negative, for sure. It is more interesting to discuss ethical and moral principles of war in the modern context from the perspective of Utilitarianism. One of the greatest utilitarian philosophers is John Stuart Mill and his main positions from his philosophical work “On Liberty” are further on applied for the discussion about war in Iraq. In this book one of the greatest utilitarian philosophers underlines the importance of liberty and freedom of thinking for every individual. At the same time, he claims that people should be willing to have freedom, because if someone would give it to them as a gift they will not appreciate it to the fullest extent. According to Mill, freedom must be gained by people. Therefore, American war in Iraq is considered from the perspective of humanitarian intervention. In order to evaluate this in an unprejudiced manner, both positive and negative sides of intervention are referred to the book by Mill. Thesis: Striving for liberty is the dominant principle for any nation. There is no nation, but a crowd of dummies in case there are no principles of freedom in the suppressed nations or they are not striving for liberty. Mill on philosophical background of war According to Mill, governmental control over the citizens can be justified only in case the society would be prevented from harm in the name of physical and moral safety. In this case government will be able to control the situation in the country. This claim of Mill evokes a vivid discussion among critics. Moreover, the philosopher claims that there are interests of “ourselves” and “others.” This deterministic approach directed on setting clear social limits within any society is another controversial argument of Mill. Nevertheless, Mill’s consideration is relevant to the modern context and there is no need for a severe criticism, but rather for the appraisal and analysis of current political situations, military conflicts or wars in the world. Contemporaries would definitely concentrate their attention on Mill’s restriction between the liberties of individuals and social groups. The philosophical questions about the relevance and domination of different social values fit to the discussion about American politics during the war in Iraq (Schauer, 2005). Mill made an emphasis on moral abstraction from societal norms and doctrines and he enabled his readers to think. Modern generation can definitely borrow many Mill’s ideas and apply them not only for the discussions about wars, but also use them in their daily lives, because global thinking leads to better daily actions. In his work On Liberty Mill wanted to defend a freedom of an individual. The mechanisms of behavioral templates creation and transformation of norms of morality are described by Mill. The set moral values are not bad, because they are bad, but because they are established and usually imposed on citizens. In other words, the main argument of Mill considered neglect of the “despotism of custom” (Mill, Chapter 3). Utilitarian ideas of Mill were reflected in his philosophy. He gives a broad consideration to the individual’s benefits for the society. He is much focused on liberties of an individual, but he claims that an individual should be useful for the society. Every individual should work hard in order to reach happiness in the society, because happiness in the society leads to a moral end. Every society gains benefits from freedom of opinion and, supposedly, this is the basic principles of America’s intervention to Iraq and other countries with dictatorship regime (Felice, 2008). Any society is unable to think and to function well in case they have no chance to express themselves freely. Freedom of thinking is a way to independence; the way to have different thinking means and to have an opportunity to leave freely. It is inhumane to suppress the truth and any society should be on the way to free self-expression and thinking. As a rule, the suppressors intend to hide the truth and make their people dumb. There are no indignant or protesting voices and it is very easy to take control over the dumb crowd. The liberty of thoughts and an opportunity to share independent thoughts is a way to social flourishing (Moseley, 2002). A working society is a hard society and they do not want to have a tyrant ruling over them. The people are working hard and they do not want to be suppressed. They want their work to be high-valued, want to be well-paid and want their rights to be preserved. Moreover, Mill underlines that different societies have different rulers and different nations have different ways of development. Therefore, there is a need to balance relations between the citizen and the state. Harmonious and trustworthy relations are a way to happiness in the society and a moral end. Correlation of Mill’s principles with Iraqi war The President Bush’s administration expressed their ideas that it was necessary to reshape Iraqi society and fight against the regime of Saddam and the terrorists (Jackson, 2006). At the same time, Bush expressed his own selfish will and he needed public approval of his actions. In any case, the decision of war is not a good means to set peace and bring liberties and freedom in the suppressed societies (Jackson, 2006). War must be justified and it must not be based only on subjective ideas of the President. Public opinion means much for Mill and he would argue that Bush’s actions should be approved by the society in the name of their welfare. To have a clearly set moral and to follow it- is beneficial for any society. Nevertheless, Mill has a peculiar and a specific vision on war: ““But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse” (Mill, Chapter 4). This profound quote means that Mill considered war as another means to reach social merits. Moreover, the philosopher claims that there are much worse things in the world than war. There are also different kinds of war, he claims. Thus, in case a “master” uses war in order to satisfy his selfish needs and ideas, this war is not good for people. People are not instruments and there is no need to use them and throw them away in order to reach any goal of a “master”. People are human beings and it is inhumane to use them as instruments. From another perspective, Mills tells that people, who initiate their own war in order to protect their own interests is usually on the way to their regeneration from the tyrannical regime and fight against suppression of their independent thinking and freedom. Moreover, there is an important underlying principle of such kind of war for truth: in case a human being does not have a desire to be free or has nothing to fight for and is used by more powerful parties as a dummy, his life is not worth living. Therefore, the most important trigger for human beings is their willing to live freely, to have their own liberties, a right for independent thinking and expression of their thoughts. The humanitarian intervention to Iraq can be justified with regards to Mill’s claim about motives and intentions. The government wanted to save the victims of tyranny and set democratic principles in the country and that was their intention. The government also took into account possible perspectives of their relations with Iraq and that was their motif. Therefore, American humanitarian intervention to Iraq is developed in accordance with the Mill’s doctrine. In any case, there is no need to suppress humanitarian motives of intervention to the suppressed countries, because otherwise there are numerous nations with tyranny if more powerful seekers for democracy will not support them. Governments should take care about the interests of their citizens and it is evident that it is impossible to set democratic principles in other countries without further promotion of their own interests. First of all, the American government was motivated to disarm Iraq, but when it found no weapons there, it positioned them as fighters for freedom of the oppressed nation. Secondly, America could have intended to set democratic principles and to disarm Iraq. It is better to claim that if America had only intent, it may seem to be superfluous. It is better to say about America’s motif of humanitarian outcome. This approach is more relevant to the utilitarian doctrine of Mill, for whom outcome of intervention were of the greatest importance. Mill claims that: “In war, not only the cause and the goals must be just, but also our motive for responding to the cause and taking up the goals” (Mill, Chapter 4). Therefore, Mill underlines the importance of having both just intent and motive, which are humanitarian or morally acceptable. Consequently, in order to build a nation or regenerate it in the complex tyrannical political context, the fighters should be willing people with clearly set goals. How can America fight for truth in other countries, if it is a complex and divided society? Mill claims that a country made up from different nationalities and diverse people has no chance to set democratic principles. Of course, we may argue that such European countries as Austria, Belgium or Switzerland live under perfect living conditions and prosper in spite of the fact that democratic principles of these countries were set by rival elites. Therefore, there are a lot of opponents of America’s war in Iraq. The country made an attempt to set democratic principles, but there are many doubts concerning a true democratic background of those principles. These doubts are widely discussed and thoroughly considered by different scholars. Opponents of Iraqi war In accordance with the opponents of war in Iraq, this war is not humanitarian intervention. For example, the war for human rights cannot be waged; there was no humanitarian objective of war in Iraq and the intervention did not occur in compliance with the doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Teson, 2005). With regards to these claims, Mill would hardly support war in Iraq. Mill’s justification of war in the name of liberties of the nation does not comply with the intentions of Bush’s administration, which is more focused on selfish nationalistic principles or even on an attempt to get richer at the expense of defendants. Moreover, Mill would agree with the “civilizing” mission of America, but he would set the limits for intervention in another country. This is the way Mill analyzed British “civilizing” mission of intervention to other countries in the nineteenth century. Only the act of humanitarism should be justified and not selfish concentration of self-interest of a “master”. At this point opponents would underline that the strong foreground of war in Iraq is oil. It is possible to describe selfish and cynical actions of America by the following quote of Mill: there is a need for the nation to have “a sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands rather than their own, will have nothing real, nothing permanent” (Mill, Chapter 4). As far as we can see, opponents of Mill’s interpretations of a favorable basis of war in Iraq can illustrate their arguments by the quotes made by Mill. There is a deep philosophy in these words, because the utilitarian philosopher is able to give an unprejudiced interpretation of war in suppressed nation. The war in Iraq can be really justified in case it has set morals and complies with the principles of humanitarian intervention (Teson, 2005). Moreover, people in Iraq should be willing for freedom. These people have never had a chance for freedom or independent thinking and maybe they are satisfied with their social position. As Mill claims, if people do not value freedom, they would be enslaved soon. Moreover, freedom should not be prescriptive, it should be strongly desired by the enslaved nation otherwise people will not appreciate it and will not struggle for it. Refutation of opposition There is a chance to oppose to the opponents of America’s humanitarian intervention to Iraq. Thus, in case America intended to depose tyrannical regime of Hussein, the opponents can decrease their moral estimation of the American government. Moreover, in case intervention had no underlying principles of humanitarian intervention, then there is a need to criticize coalition and make them pay for their errors and it is no way to discard a humanitarian basis of war. Opponents should not argue against humanitarian basis of intervention to Iraq, because in such a way they discard humanitarian principles in the society. America managed to cope with a dreadful tyrant and liberated the nation of the country from suppression. The intent of war was to liberate people from the suppressing of the tyranny. Finally, America copes with that goal and tyrant was removed. Iraqi people had a chance to see perspectives of freedom, an open way to liberty. They were in the beginning of the new way of moral and social development. This intent was underlined by the members of Coalition and Hussein had to pay for his erroneous and inhumane behavior and committing crimes against humanity. On January 30, 2005, Iraqi people had an opportunity to vote freely, with no suppression. Nowadays Iraq has a chance to develop their laws and to live in accordance with the values they choose. The human rights and the rule of law are basic values set up by the American government in Iraq and it is the paramount outcome of humanitarian intervention, which is in compliance with the doctrine of Mill. Conclusion John Stuart Mill suggests an interesting vision of liberty that is worth-discussing. To set freedom and liberty principles is the most important task of the government. In case a nation is suppressed and is willing to freedom, there is a need to fight against suppression for independent thinking, freedom of choice and liberty. As far as we can see, Mill’s doctrine is profound and it is taken by proponents of American intervention to Iraq as the one supporting their humanitarian intervention and at the same time, opponents refer to Mill’s doctrine, as to the one, which criticizes American intervention to Iraq. Actually, different things in the world can be interpreted in different manners. It is an important philosophical skill to interpret different phenomena from negative and positive prospects. Therefore, this work is the reflection of philosophical considerations about Iraqi war based on Mill’s doctrine on liberty and just war. Works cited Felice, William F. "Moral Responsibility in a Time of War." Social Justice 35.3 (2008): 28+. Questia. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. Jackson, Robert. "Doctrinal War: Religion and Ideology in International Conflict." The Monist 89.2 (2006): 274+. Questia. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. Mill, John Stuart. Ebooks. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/ Moseley, Alexander. A Philosophy of War. New York: Algora, 2002. Questia. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. Schauer, Frederick. "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." Stanford Law Review 57.6 (2005): 2157+.Questia. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. Teson, Fernando R. "Ending Tyranny in Iraq." Ethics & International Affairs 19.2 (2005): 1+. Questia. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. Read More