According the the consequentialist outlook outlined by Shafer-Landau, one must do as much good as they can. We must make the world the best place it can be by choosing the optimific outcome, the outcome that yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. If acts maximize the amount of goodness in the world, then those acts are morally right and therefore required. However, when looking at the consequences of actions, some problems arise for the consequentialist. Shafer- Landau asks readers: "If the rightness of an action depends on all of its results, and these haven't yet occurred, then how can we know whether an action is the right one to do?" (123). The morality of our actions can depend on two things: an action's actual results, or an action's expected results.
Shafer-Landau makes sure to note that "we are not morally infallible" (124). We are all, to some degree, morally ignorant. Humans cannot determine all of the expected results, or even at times understand the actual results, that will occur from an action or decision. Even if an action is is done in good conscience, that is to say even if intentions are morally good provided they are expected to yield good results, an action done in good conscience can yield disastrous results. This is a problem with consequentialism that can be seen in today's society, especially in the Middle East.
When the United States captured Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq, the expected results from removing him from power and eventually executing him were impossible to determine. The immediate and actual results seemed positive. The people were free from harsh dictatorship, an oppressive government, and it seemed as if they would be free from the wars and bloodshed that Hussein had condoned and encouraged. Looking back we can see the results of our actions, but even now the extent of damage that our interference in Iraq caused is still to be determined. The actual results of removing Hussein from power in Iraq were celebrated at the time (as shown by the Youtube video below of citizens celebrating Hussein's downfall), but now the Middle East can be argued to be worse off than ever with the introduction of ISIS to power.
ISIS is a militant group, the Islamic State, who are terrorists that use Islam to justify violence. The video I have attached describes in detail their evolution and rise to power. They desire to redraw the map of the Middle East by creating an Islamic State, and are in control or large parts of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Rising from the ashes of Al Qaeda after the death of Osama bin Laden, ISIS took a stronghold in Syria and became the most powerful terrorist factor amidst the civil war. They took control of oil resources, began kidnappings and public slayings, and utilized 21st century technology by released propaganda videos online. It seems as if one dictatorship has been replaced by another, except this one is influenced by religion. It begs the question, was interfering the right thing to do? In taking out Saddam Hussein, and then bin Laden, was happiness and well-being maximized?
In the article I attached about the death of Saddam Hussein, it is stated that the resulting bloodbath in Iraq following Hussein's defeat "made some nostalgic for even the oppressive days of Mr. Hussein, when public security was not an issue. His repressive ways were credited with keeping the fractious population of 26 million — including 20 percent Sunni Muslims, who dominated; 55 percent Shiite Muslims; 20 percent Kurds plus several tiny minorities including Christians — from shattering along ethnic lines" (MacFarquhar). Now the Middle East is shattered along the ethnic lines that Hussein was able to preserve despite his harsh rule. Bloodshed is still prevalent as militants seize towns and force minorities to flee or die as a result of their religious beliefs. There are mass executions, rape, and brutality to an extent that had not yet been seen before ISIS's rise to power.
There are things being done to stop ISIS. Airstrikes, internet sites restricting their online presence, and local citizens banning together to push back the momentum of ISIS. However, consequentialists and utilitarianists must ask what the results of these new actions against ISIS could result in. Will they maximize future happiness? Or will our actions once again create an unexpected backlash?
According to consequentialists, to know whether an action is morally required we must first add up all the benefits it produces. We then we must add up all the harm it causes, and from there we can determine the balance of whether the balance of happiness is greater than the harm. However, in situations like that of the Middle East, it seems impossible to add up all of an action's harm. Often times an act that produces both the most benefit and the least harm is not straightforward. Some pleasures outweigh some others, as do some pains outweigh other pains. So what is right? I tend to find myself agreeing with Shafer-Landau's statement that "utilitarianism simply demands too much information, and calculating skills that no one could possibly possess" (142). How could those in charge of the United States actions in 2006 foresee the threat of the ISIS in 2014?
There are of course many other difficulties with consequentialism that Shafer-Landau outlines. However, in my opinion, the most difficult aspect of consequentialism is it's unpredictable nature. It's moral flexibility allows for so many options, and making a moral judgement call without knowing for sure what the future outcome will be makes deliberation impossibly hard. The fact that "virtuous motivation can sometimes lead to poor results" (153) is an unfortunate truth. It can be seen in the United State's interference in the Middle East. It is easy to understand why worries for consequentialism are not easily solved, but nonetheless it is an intriguing moral theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.