Logic Times

More Fuzzy Moral Math

Posted by Aslan, 12/16/04, 11:56pm. Comments (3)

The Logic Times Fuzzy Moral Math essay demonstrates that opposition to the Iraq war based upon concern for Iraqi civilians is without merit. The plight of Iraqi citizens today is vastly improved, even when one only considers “probability of collateral death” as an appropriate measure of well-being. Statistics reveal that the average Iraqi civilian is roughly three times less likely to die today as a result of military/governmental forces than at any time during Saddam’s reign. This shallow analysis, of course, ignores the importance of freedom, suffrage, education, and equal rights in the well-being equation.

Recognizing that concern for Iraqi civilians was bad cover for anti-American sentiments, many liberals have scurried for new cover: concern for American lives, in particular, our soldiers in harm’s way.

This position is an uncomfortable one for anti-war liberals – to be on the side of what they believe has always been a source of great imperialistic evil in the world: the American military. Furthermore, if they claim greater concern for the lives of American soldiers than the lives of Iraqi civilians, the anti-war left violates yet another sacred commandment of globalism: that every life is equally valuable. As a Christian, I do acknowledge that every life is equally precious before God. However, the foreign policy of the United States – indeed, the foreign policy of any country - has different obligations: to preferentially protect and defend its own citizens. And while this pro-American bias is to be expected in United States foreign policy, it is surprising to say the least coming from establishment liberals, where America-bashing is sport. But necessity is the mother of invention, and need has driven many on the left into using support for the troops – which they know has popular appeal – to denounce the war effort (and the administration).

The basic premise is simple: the cost is not worth the benefit - or, to use more appropriate language, our objectives in Iraq and the Middle East are not worth the sacrifices of our military men and women.

Let me stress that one soldier lost is too many; nowhere will you find a stronger supporter of our heroes in the military than here at Logic Times. As a matter of war, however, lives are lost. In fact, as a matter of life – not just war – lives are lost. One cannot avoid the casualties of life – but one can take action when the cost in human life exceeds the benefit of the activity, such as with coal mining in the 1800s. And here is where our fledgling military enthusiasts are exposed as hypocrites once again.

If anti-war liberals take the stance that the cost in American lives is too great for the objective (defense of America, propagation of liberty, opposition to terrorism), what then does their silence say about the loss of American life in other endeavors?

(data here, here, here, here, and here)

Clearly, these people care not at all for the human carnage on the highways. The benefit of driving their Prius apparently justifies over 80 times the rate of death than the benefit of protecting our country and spreading freedom. If American lives are so precious to these globalists, you would think they would be 80 times more vocal in opposing the automobile. And what about construction? Evidently, they must believe that the benefit of building skyscrapers is worth a high cost in American lives, but the benefit of preventing their destruction is not.

Those who oppose the Iraq war because of the death of American soldiers are either naïve or, in an appalling display of cowardly opportunism, using what is honorable and heroic for pedestrian political gain.

It is not about soldiers to these people, it is about politics. And the leper's bell of these opportunists is the saying, "I support the troops, but I oppose the war."

In the end, however, there is a far more devastating consequence to this hypocrisy that endangers the soldiers they purport to care about. This essay - United States at War - to follow.

3: Brian from MA

January 8, 2006 4:32pm EST

I take issue with your article "More Fuzzy Moral Math." How dare you count the destruction of non-human potential beings as equivalent to that of our imperialistic goon squad military! Just because the total number of partial birth abortions is 7.8 times the number of miltary deaths means nothing, regardles of "viability" or some made up right-wing crap. Similarly, the fact all destruction on non-persons is 1,680 times as high as the deaths in war also means nothing. We are in a quest to help women, the fact that we destroy 1,680 times as many nonhumans in the process is irrelevant.

Moreover, I refuse to accept that automobiles are more dangerous than Iraq. How DARE you tell me that my drunken driving into the Chappaquiddick is cummulatively 84 times as lethal as a war! I support the imperialist goon, I mean, warrior, but not the war and not our fascist president, the REAL terrorist who wants to stop up from killing 1,680 times more nonhumans then he killed imperialist goons, er, soldiers in his attempt to takeover a hopeless quagmire when nothing but death accumulates, at least if you ask the infallible and accredited New York Times and don't buy into those damned digital brownshirts.

Liberals are the real heros in society! While you chickenhawks send your imperialist goons to do your fascist bidding, we are ridding the world from the oppressive reign of equality of opportunity capitalism in favor of a government state of equality of results, we are saving the trees and forests and tundra from the evil of the corporations that provide nothing more then mere wages to an insignificant majority of the populace. We are giving women the choice to destroy nonhumans and thusly improving all facets of their lives considerably through an increased sense of power, even with no realizable results. The feeling itself of empowerment is good enough for us to call this a good thing.

We are smarter then you, we know more about the military then your "generals on the ground" can ever hope to know about war, and we'd appreciate it if you morons stopped voting for people who clearly have no idea what they are doing! You're putting us out of office and its about time you stopped!

(This satire brought to you by: Brian from MA [The one with the dumbnamic duo, Kerry and Kennedy])

{Aslan: A classic effort deserving to share space with the original. Look out BlameBush.}

Comments

1: Larry Horacek

December 17, 2004 01:50am EST

Thanks for the thoughtful article about Fuzzy Moral Math. You are tackling a difficult issue in that it is imprecise to compare military combat deaths with, say, construction deaths or motor vehicle deaths. One fairly realistic comparison is to use combat death figures from previous conflicts that are similar in scope and mission as our current engagement in Iraq. Still, the job done by our military in Iraq today is stunning in its effectiveness.

However, the greater danger in framing the issue of the War on Terror is the inability of Americans to understand that we are in a religious war. It is clear from the stated and imputed goals of Al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups that the final objective is the destruction of the USA and the establishment of a world-wide Muslim caliphate. Since most of the wars that the US has fought in during the past two centuries have had political/ideological underpinnings, it is difficult to imagine that we would fight a war that has a basis more akin to the 17th rather than the 21st century. Add to the equation that Liberal Progressives have been pushing hard for the last generation to make American a trenchant secular society, and it is easy to see why many Americans really can’t see the threat before them. These Americans are of the Rodney King School of Foreign Policy – "Can’t we all just get along?." The answer is, "NO." Real Politic clearly reflects that the War on Terror is a religious war and it will be fought for a long time (to wit, The Thirty Years War). Al Qaeda won’t go easily and we must be ruthless in hunting down all Muslim combatants and destroying them completely (how Rome dealt with Carthage comes to mind). That’s how we win the War on Terror. The good news is that the US Military is up to the task. Are the American people up to it?

{Aslan: Brilliant reply, Larry. You suggest that the secularization of America has deadened our appreciation of religious war in general and this one in particular. Superb.

As for my fatality analysis, it was not my intent to make a strict comparison, but to challenge the position that any endeavor can be solely measured by the cost in human lives. Only a moral relativist (the natural secular position) regards good and evil, right and wrong, worthy and unworthy objectives based upon cost rather than principle. Cost certainly factors in, but the use of this opportunistic calculus in not only wrong and weak in this war, it is extremely dangerous. I attempt to demonstrate the dangerous by-product of this philosophy in my commentary Conditional Support for War.

That said, I knew this essay was logically a little shaky. LOL. With my Iraq essays, however, I am trying to close all the doors on the false liberal arguments, and this saccharine concern for our heroic soldiers by the left needs to be challenged.}

2: thomaspaul

December 30, 2004 3:57pm EST

Great article and give and take with Larry.

I would like to add another twist to your comments about liberals claiming the human cost is not worth the war in Iraq (or any war for that matter). I suspect your average Bush-hating, religion-bashing, enviro-extremist liberal would not be comfortable replying to your arguments because they don't really value human life that much after all. The earth and all its living organisms, sans humans, are of higher value to them. Why would they be so willing to impose unemployment on communities to save spotted toads, or even destroy human life and property to protect trees or animals? When I discuss these issues with them, it becomes immediately apparent that they believe humans are not as deserving as the rest of earth's life. It follows, then, that since America represents the ultimate in human achievement and power, America is their greatest enemy, which explains why they want to get rid of corporations (the geese that lay all of America's golden eggs), implement the Kyoto Treaty (which will harm the U.S. economically far more than any other country regardless of the lack of solid science), demand we drive toy cars (regardless of the lives they cost) and turn power over to the United Nations (regardless of their interminably corrupt bureaucracy, their hatred of America, and their numerous undemocratic corrupt member countries).

Correspondingly, it is interesting that these liberals are also likely to deny the existence of evil, which of course is what leads to moral relativism and political correctness. However, with a little introspection, they must realize that they also believe in evil. The reason they value the earth and animals above humans is because they are innocent. Only "man" creates evil corporations; only man destroys; only man is greedy. Man is evil (except they and their ilk are somehow exempt). So it is no great wonder that they value the "innocent" over the "guilty."

It is ironic how the liberal intelligentsia, like our primitive ancestors, have found comfort in being nature worshippers. They believe in sacrificing human accomplishment, human progress and humans themselves to these less "dangerous" gods which will not challenge their own central role in their chimerical world.

{Aslan: Absolutely superb, thomaspaul. The hypocritical contortions of the left sometimes leave one breathless. And while the anti-war liberal values nature over human life, it certainly values almost all other human life over the life of a soldier, in particular a U.S. soldier. Yet, politics makes for strange bedfellows, so we find our nature-loving, fetus-ripping, anti-U.S. liberals quietly sliding under the sheets next to the wrong kind of seal - a Navy Seal.}