The only thing humans have to inform their ethical decision-making is the evidence they have at the moment and lessons from the past. We aren't precognitive, we can't predict the bizarre, counterintuitive possibilities that MIGHT occur in the far-flung future. We never have the benefit of hindsight before the fact. All we have is the evidence, and (when it wasn't quashed or laughed off by Administration apologists) every ounce of it pre-war said that invading Iraq was going to be a horrible, stupid idea that would've resulted in chaos and waste.
Essentially, justifying any action with "Yeah but in 40 years it might just turn out I'm right" only gives people a free license to be grossly irresponsible and afterwards free from answering to anyone because, hey, we don't know what miracles might occur from that guy's incompetence. Let's remain agnostic on the issue and let history be the decider.
Imagine a guy shooting wildly into a crowd and kills a teenager at random. They put him in jail as they rightfully should. However, a year later, some investigators find the murdered teen's private journal and discover the kid was planning on shooting up his school. Is the original shooter exonerated? Are we supposed to applaud him for his crazed, irrational misconduct?
And what if the shooter maintained from the beginning that "Hey, that kid MIGHT have been the next Hitler or something. I have absolutely no evidence but hey, who knows? Let history be the judge and quit you whining." Are we supposed to offer a mea culpa and a "You were right all along, here's a medal?"
THAT is what Bush is expecting us to do with his reasoning for the war. When the evidence fails him and the brute force of rationality is threatening to sweep his legacy away, he babbles that a flimsy branch rooted on mights and could-bes will save him from his own incompetence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment