The Iraq Debate: Principles vs. Rules
by Joseph Rowlands
The war on Iraq has pitted Objectivists vs. Objectivists in the intellectual battlefield. Some have stooped to name-calling, and it's starting to become obvious that many have given up trying to persuade and convince. Instead, they're trying to scream louder than the others. What happened? Why has rational debate broken down on this issue? This article tries to determine some of the reasons why the discussion has failed. This article will focus on the process; it is not intended to favor one position over the other.
The most important problem comes from the age-old conflict of principles vs. rules. A principle is a wide-reaching abstraction that explains some fundamental truth. In the case of a moral principle, it tells you that to achieve certain values, you need certain means. It is an identification of a cause and effect. Moral principles provide you guidance to your actions by allowing you to easily identify the results of certain actions or the required causes of certain effects. A moral principle takes the form, "To achieve this, you need to do that."
A moral rule is quite different from a moral principle. It also guides your actions, but it does it in a way that is automatic and non-thinking. You follow the rule, and that's it. A moral principle only suggests that to accomplish a value, you'd need to do a kind of action. It doesn't actually require that you achieve that value. A moral principle suggests actions, whereas a moral rule commands them.
What does this have to do with the war on Iraq? Many of the points of conflict stem from a use of moral rules instead of moral principles. One side will suggest a moral rule, explain how it is or is not being followed, and rest its argument on that alone. For instance, the anti-war side may suggest that this war is not constitutional and thus is illegal. If that's the entirety of the argument, it's based on a moral rule. You must do what the Constitution says. You're not supposed to ask, "Why?"
If a moral principle was used instead, it would look quite different. War opponents would have to identify the value they are trying to achieve and compare it to other values. In the case of constitutionality, they would say the Rule of Law is of paramount importance to civilization. Without it, our rights could not be adequately protected. Obeying the Constitution will help preserve the Rule of Law, whereas flaunting it will harm the Rule of Law. At that point, the pro-war side could compare the values it is achieving to that value. That side might suggest that our security is more important than the minor harm done to the Rule of Law -- or that the Constitution is so ignored anyway, the effect on the Rule of Law is negligible. The point is, you can compare values rationally if they are identified.
A similar problem comes from those who treat principles as if they were rules. The pro-war side has mentioned a number of principles that support the war. My article on SOLOHQ titled "Foreign Policy" identifies a few. Some people on the anti-war side have attempted to dismiss these principles. Their method is strange. They argue that if we were to treat these principles as rules, they would be a disaster in practice. If, for instance, we were to oppose any nation that systematically abuses its citizens, then we'd have to go to war with China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
This is an absurd argument, though. Any moral rule is a disaster in practice. Only moral principles can work. Moral rules, since they ignore the values they're created to achieve, can never weigh the consequences of their actions. And because they are not defined by a cause-and-effect relationship, they will inevitably be practiced even in cases where they can't achieve a positive effect. Those who treat moral principles as rules are sacrificing reason for simplicity.
A consequence of using moral rules instead of moral principles is that you can stick with one idea and ignore everything else. Does this war violate a moral rule? Yes. Enough said! This, of course, leads to a complete dismissal of other ideas. It doesn't matter what values are gained through this war. It doesn't matter what values are lost if we don't have it. It's enough to know that a moral rule is broken. The same is true for either side of the debate that promotes moral rules.
A principle-based discussion is different. Instead of completely dismissing the arguments of the other position, you can listen, understand and integrate it into your own position. If someone suggests that wars generally benefit the State by giving it expanded power at the expense of the individual, you can consider that. You can hold up the loss of rights and compare it to what you believe the war accomplishes. You might consider that this war could bring greater security to the world. You might also consider that the government expands its reach during times of crisis. Maybe even more so then during times of war. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gave governments an excuse to greatly strengthen their own power. You might then conclude that not having the war might lead to even greater losses of freedom.
Again, the point is that you can compare these values if you're discussing in terms of principles. If you resort to moral rules, which are anti-reason, it must inevitably destroy any rational discussion. You're only left with claiming that your moral rule is better than theirs without the possibility of a rational comparison.
We've seen that the use of principles is needed to have a rational debate. Without them, it is impossible to use reason to compare the values sought. We have to avoid the trap of relying on moral rules to do our thinking for us.
Discuss this Article (25 messages)
|
