|
On Faith Mike Young |
‘Moral clarity’ simplifies
decisions on crucial mattersThose with "moral clarity" have it easy. That is the whole point of seeking certainty in religious and ethical matters; it simplifies decision-making.
We hear "War is bad, peace is good," on the one hand. On the other, "Since attacking bad guys is good, no one should 'dis' the attackers. They're obviously good guys."
An unfortunate feature of moral clarity is that we tend to judge our own actions by the intent of the act, and everyone else's by the outcome of the act. I am not responsible for unintended consequences. But you are. You should have known, should have anticipated, should have used only pure means.
A further feature of moral clarity is that there are only two choices: good and evil. A frequent criticism of those who lack moral clarity is that they have an inadequate understanding of the nature and reality of "evil."
Yet it is a truism that the best of intentions so often results in untoward and unwanted consequences. One wonders which side has the inadequate understanding of evil.
Some would have us use more calculated criteria for such moral decision-making, a kind of least-cost analysis in a carefully circumscribed context: "Yes, we killed several thousands of people, innocent bystanders and coerced conscripts along with the bad guys. But how many people would Saddam have killed had we not wrought regime change in Iraq?"
There is no way to know what outcomes alternate responses would have produced, neither ahead of time, nor after the fact. There are no "undo" and "redo" buttons on the Pentagon's computers, nor on their critics' either. And there is something very chilling about relative damage and comparative casualties as a moral justification.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the run-up to the war in Iraq was that the debate, the diplomacy and all of the stated grounds were sham from the outset.
It seems fairly clear that the decision to liberate Iraq was made as early as last March, a desire the president's men had held even before 9/11. It wasn't about oil, or weapons of mass destruction, and certainly not about any calculations of religious or moral philosophy.
It was in furtherance of their own vision of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast. It was: We're right. We can. The use of international institutions of law and policy making are slow and unreliable. Therefore, we will.
The use of moral clarity as an instrument of foreign policy may be the most immoral act of this whole episode. Immoral because it poisons the atmosphere of rational and ethical considerations in making and carrying out public policy.
We complained of radical Muslims hijacking the Islamic religion. Those of us who are still followers of Jesus might well complain of a similar hijacking. We do tend to become like our enemies.
The war is now more or less over and we "won." We now face the task of leaving something of greater value in place of the regime we changed. It would be useful to see a little less photo op arrogance in the process. Political PR for domestic consumption here at home is going to be consumed abroad as well.
Moralists may judge the intentions and the purity of the means. Those of us lacking moral clarity must await the actual outcomes. They are what we will ultimately have to live with.
The Rev. Mike Young is pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Honolulu.
Religion Calendar