| Necessary Evil? |
| For those of you who have not been watching, some of my friends and I are carrying out some profile wars. Basically, I'm arguing that war, though necessary, is evil. They're arguing that it's not evil. It's certainly an interesting discussion, and has been quite enjoyable. Well, I'm going to take some time in this entry to outline some of the issues, and give my stances on them.
1. Is there such a thing as a necessary evil? Some would argue: "That which is necessary cannot be evil." I will disagree. Of course, it depends on definitions (as any good philosopher would say... Not that I am one, mind you.) Something is necessary if it is required for a particular end. Something is evil if it violates moral principles. Necessity is, by nature, something that is extrinsic. An object or action cannot be, in and of itself, "necessary". Rather, it is "necessary for" something. Eating is not necessary intrinsically. Rather, it is "necessary for" survival. If one abandons the goal of survival, eating ceases to be necessary. Morality, however, is extremely debatable as to its nature. Some would argue that morality is imputed from the morality of the consequences. This is an "end-state" view of morality. By this view, safety is considered something "morally valuable", and since war will aid our national safety, it is imputed with moral value. Of course, there is the question of "Why is safety morally valuable?" The process can continue indefinitely, or until we arrive at some statement of moral value that is assumed as an axiom. The difficulty with this view is deciding on that axiom. "Murder is morally valuable." from a logical perspective is just as valid as "Charity is morally valuable." if we take an end-state view. Another view of morality is a "process" morality. This view sees certain actions as inherently evil and others as inherently good. Exactly what makes them good or evil is a valid question, though. Yet one more view of morality is an "intent" morality. Here, it is the actual goal (rather than consequences or process) that makes an action moral. My personal problem with this view (in its simple form, anyway) is that it must praise the poorly thought-out, but well-intentioned acts of people. Finally, I will present what I think to be the Christian view of morality. Scripture seems to support a combination of intent and process, from my reading. Someone may go through the process of "doing good" without the action having moral value, if the intent was wrong. That is why we are told to do good in private. That way, we aren't seeking glory for ourselves, and instead are focusing on doing it in obedience to the God whom we love. At the same time, it is not excusable to just do anything and call it "loving God". Through Scripture and the Spirit, God tells us how to act. And, regardless any claim that we make saying "we were loving God" by doing something against Scriptural mandate, the action does not have moral value. So, what is the proper intent? Christ points them out to us: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." - Matt. 22:37-39 Our intent must be one of love for God and others. And, because of our love we seek to obey God and his statutes. It is his statutes (written and unwritten) that tell us the proper process. By His Scripture and His Spirit, He tells us HOW to love him. So, when we think "I'm going to fight for good men, and the destruction of evil men." (which, based purely on love of God expressed as love for justice, seems valid), God answers us "Do not resist an evil person." (Matt. 5:39) When we are tempted to divide our lives between "Christian situation" and "secular situation", Paul sets an example for us in saying "And whatever you do, whether in word or in deed, do it all in the name of the Lord..." (Col. 3:17) Of course, God does not want his Scriptures to be abused. "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) Of course, we all know that those words are preceded by "The fool says in his heart". In the previous entry, I presented my guidelines for proper Scriptural interpretation. Refer there to what I think are pretty good basic rules. True, they are overly simplistic. But, it is better to be cautious and avoid making God say something He didn't. I think that Scripture makes pretty clear that those things that are inherent to war are not consistent with Christianity. Violence is, by nature, not gentle. And the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness. We aren't supposed to resist an evil man (how much less a good one!). (The only real exception would be if an evil man tempts us to do evil.) So, how can I, on balance, support the war in Iraq? Simple. It is not the government's place to uphold moral law. That isn't it's job. It is in place to protect the freedom of the citizens. Ultimately, if the citizens' lives are threatened (as they are by terrorism and those that support it), their freedoms are threatened as well. Don't get me wrong here, either... I hate the idea of preemption. It is one of the most dangerous philsophies to come out of Washington, in my humble opinion. That's why I think the more solid justification for the war (and the one that has been presented more, recently) is the enforcement of international law. The UN Resolutions were put in place to protect the freedoms of the world's citizens. By enforcing them, we are doing that as well. The war is necessary for protecting the freedoms of the world's citizens. However, necessity does not prevent the fact that it is evil. But, as it is a government action, good and evil do not matter. Only individuals may act morally or immorally. I will continue to contend: The war is a necessary evil. Mi amas vin, mia amino. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |