Is the war on terrorism really the solution?
Jul 08 '02 (Updated Jul 10 '02)
The Bottom Line Not for people who dislike long discussions on the September 11 attacks, but possibly for the people who are just as confused as I am.
My very last exam in high school (which was only two Thursdays ago) was to apply two ethical theories to a moral dilemma. Basically, I wrote about two ethical theories called utilitarianism and the categorical imperative theory, how it can be applied to punishment and used the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as an example of punishment. The previous theory (utilitarianism) is a theory that believes in the principle that all acts should be done "to create the greatest good for the greatest number". So, in the context of war, this would mean that the U.S. seeking revenge on the Al-Qaeda would be justified. This is due to the fact that if we look at the consequences, this would create the most happiness among members of society (which would make this theory, in ethical terms, a teleological theory). The categorical imperative theory, on the other hand, is a theory that follows the principle that a person should follow commands "for its own sake" and should be universalized to prevent social anarchy. In the context of war, this would mean that a command such as "all terrorists should be killed" would be justifiable. In this theory the consequences do not matter. The fact that you do as your commanded is what matters (this theory is, therefore, deontological, the opposite of teleological).
As I said earlier, I had to apply this to punishment, and by using the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as an example, I had to come to a conclusion as to whether these theories are useful in solving conflicts. It is interesting, because I feel that both the theories I just mentioned are not useful in solving any conflict, and causes more problems. The utilitarianism theory is so flimsy that it can be considered that the war on terrorism waged by George W. Bush can be both considered to be right and wrong. It can be considered right, because the American public would be happy to see the Al-Qaeda and other terrorists suffer. However, it can be considered that not only do some people feel that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but people like Nelson Mandela (who, believe it or not, was a terrorist) and Yasser Arafat have to suffer, despite benefitting society.
Sure, you might say that Bush did not mean that all terrorists should suffer, but if you say that, where do you cross the line between the "good" terrorists and the "bad" terrorists? What separates the two?
If we look at the categorical imperative theory, it also suffers some setbacks, although this theory is more definite and less flimsy than utilitarianism. It has definite solutions, but do these definite solutions really solve the problem of terrorism? But then again, I could say that terrorism will always exist and that the war on terrorism can deter terrorism.
After the exam, I was left thinking about what has happened the past 10 months.
Does the war on terrorism successfully serve itself as a deterrent to terrorism?
To me, the obvious answer would be a firm NO (and no, I will not confuse you with any more ethical jargon). But, it is clearly evident that it is hard to come up with a solution to terrorism, because one can say that bombing Afghanistan as a result of the attacks is barbaric (since it just leads to more deaths of innocent people), and if the U.S. did not bomb Afghanistan (or come up with a similar solution soon enough), the U.S. would be considered weak and other terrorist attacks would take place. Therefore, from here, it can be said that the U.S. came up with an efficient solution to the problem.
But, in retrospect, does killing terrorists cause more happiness? Or does it cause more anger? Yes, to some of you, it may be ridiculous to even think that it causes any anger. But, think about it this way. If you go around waging war on terrorism, you are putting the people you protect in danger. Terrorists always look for opportunities to bomb a building, take hostage of innocent people and even kill them, so that they can try and get the attention of the world. Therefore, if you kill terrorists, you are only instilling anger into them, which causes them to retaliate in brutal ways towards the innocent people around the world.
Look at the war between Israel and Palestine. Sure, it is clearly evident that the Israelis are obviously causing more problems for the Palestinians than the Palestinians are causing for the Israelis, but it can be said that because of the Israelis' intolerant attitude towards terrorism, it has led to various terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, which are waged not on the people waging war. It is waged on the innocent people who have had no involvement in war. Is it fair that the people who are not involved in war should suffer the consequences of their government's actions?
But, this point leads to another question. Is it fair that all of us should live the world in the fear of being killed by terrorists? Do you want your children to grow up in a world full of fear? Full of hate? A world that promotes fighting fire with fire? Or should we seek peace?
Some of you may feel that we should seek peace by implementing pacifist ideas into people. However, the problem with this is that by being pacifist, we are opening the door to the terrorists, allowing them to take advantage of the fact that they will not suffer if they attack a non-violent nation. Obviously, as a Catholic, I should believe that the war on terrorism is wrong, with one of the 10 Commandments being, "thou shalt not kill". However, it was a strong believer of the Roman Catholic, St. Thomas Aquinas, who reformulated the Just War theory, which does allow any legitimate power to kill for a justifiable reason. This theory only contradicts the Catholic and Christian religion, and since most Christians are faced with the conflicting belief as to whether using violence is right, it only leaves us confused (even if it is okay to use it in exceptions, where do you draw the line?).
I know what most of you are thinking now. You are probably just as confused as I am. I can go on discussing the topic of terrorism forever if I wanted to, but I know that if I did, I will end up where I began. Confused. Unsure of what should be done. Faced with conflicting beliefs. Sure, I would still say I do not believe what the U.S. did was the best thing to do, but then again, what is the best thing to do under immense pressure? I'm only 17, and am probably naïve when it comes to discussing topics such as these, but I feel that I will always be skeptical towards decisions any countries make to solve a problem, but in this case, I am left more perplexed than usual. Anyone have different thoughts towards this? Or is it just me that believes the aftermath of the September 11 attacks is just spelling more trouble for us?
I wrote a review before on the September 11 attacks, and it can be found here:
http://www.epinions.com/content_2377490564
Thanks for reading the review.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
cripper
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Chris Ying
Location: Sydney, Australia
Reviews written: 348
Trusted by: 323 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.