MORALITY AND NECESSITY (OPINION, NOT FACT)
Much has been written of war and peace in this small circle of the internet by many with a far better knowledge than I of history, philosophy and the fine line where theology must weigh in on political matters. I hesitate to disagree with the prevailing opinion that Bush is committing a heinous crime against the people of Iraq, that his war is a sin against God and against humanity.
The sheer volume of evidence and argument both for and against war is such that I find myself completely at a loss to condense it all into a convincing argument that this American president is acting as he ought, or at the least as he must. Nor can I reconcile the apparently inevitable clash between the moral and the necessary for this president. Before I venture to pass judgement on him, it seems I ought to come to some conclusion regarding the interaction of morality and necessity; I would far rather state an absolute moral rule (Thou shalt not kill) which forever subordinates the necessary to the moral. But I find myself unable to escape one simple fact.
George W. Bush is the leader of the United States of America. He carries directly on his shoulders the burden of millions of lives. For these four years, his sole concern is the safety and security of the American people. In that capacity, he will inevitably be forced to kill?worse, to order others to kill.
This is an office which I could never dream of seeking for myself. I have no desire to be bound by duty and necessity to decide for myself which imperative I hold higher. And yet it seems that the office is necessary to human society?necessary, indeed, for the sake of peace. All I can hope is that he who rules also bows before a higher Ruler and will not abuse the power given him?and that he will also hold sacred the trust given him, and will not unnecessarily risk the lives he has sworn to protect.
For, after all, one can always find hope for peace?that hope can never be killed if one is determined to find it, to never fight a war until every chance for peace is exhausted. Such determination, however, binds one to fight only defensive wars. Moral theorists?who do not rule, who do not bear the burden of a hundred million lives?can commit to this. A ruler cannot.
Especially in these sad times, such means accepting as a matter of course that anyone who chooses can have one good crack at killing your people before you act against them. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, millions could die. A good ruler has no choice but to act first. And again, the people he rules can only hope that he has the wisdom to see clearly who must be dealt with.
In theory, I think Bush is doing well. His policy of preemption is far from universal. It simply redefines those actions which the United States will?and I say must?view as attacks upon its people. If a nation supports terrorists, Bush will view it as an act of war. So too with pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps my only objection is to his choice of first target. Saddam Hussein simply does not appear to pose a threat comparable to that of North Korea.
And yet I have little doubt that Bush feels himself bound to do as he now does. Every decision he has made since September 11 has been one he found necessary to his task of preserving American lives. For all it appears hasty at first glance, there is no way for him to turn back now. Consistency, reputation and strength are all, unfortunately, necessary considerations for a ruler.
Yes, pride is a sin?but what if humility were to show weakness that would jeopardize a million lives. Vengeance is a sin?but what if turning the other cheek might end with a mushroom cloud over Chicago? So many sins?so many duties?small wonder rulers are so seldom saints.
May God have mercy on them.
posted by Fr. A at 2:14 PM
0 comments
