(This image of Iraqi refugees heading for the Turkish border is from dw.com at https://is.gd/1TRM1Z.)
It's been 15 years now since 9/11, and the consequences of our responses to that event look worse and worse all the time. How did our political leaders get it so wrong? By making mistakes like the general in this week's thought experiment.
---------------------------------------------------
The president lowered his voice and said, "What you are suggesting is illegal."
"Yes indeed, Mr. President," replied the general. "But you have to ask yourself how best to protect the lives of your citizens. The situation is simple: Tatum is determined both to mount a campaign of ethnic cleansing in his own country and to launch military attacks on us. Our intelligence tells us that he is almost alone in this view and that if we were to take him out, he would be replaced by the far more moderate Nesta."
"Yes, but you talk about us taking him out. Assassination of a foreign leader is contrary to international law."
The general sighed. "But Mr. President, you must see how simple your choice is. One bullet, followed by a few more as security services clean up afterwards, will be enough to avert a widespread massacre and probable war. I know you don't want the blood of a foreign leader on your hands, but would you prefer to be drowning in the blood of thousands of his, and your own, people?"
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 190.
---------------------------------------------------
So yes, there are times when morality can supersede the law, as is the case when society is not acting toward the long-term survival of all life (my objective definition of moral good). But that really doesn't seem to be the case here. It's more of a case of utilitarian math gone wrong. The general thinks he's only taking one little life (plus or minus a little "cleanup" afterwards) for the benefit of...who knows...thousands?...millions?...of good ol' Americans in the U.S. of A. I've already said plenty lately about how knowledge is probabilistic because you can't know the future so you should tread cautiously where consequences of error are large, so let's just look at the experiment again and point out all the possibilities for prediction error (highlighted in bold red).
---------------------------------------------------
The president lowered his voice and said, "What you are suggesting is illegal."
"Yes indeed, Mr. President," replied the general. "But you have to ask yourself how best to protect the lives of your citizens. The situation is simple: Tatum is determined both to mount a campaign of ethnic cleansing in his own country and to launch military attacks on us. Our intelligence tells us that he is almost alone in this view and that if we were to take him out, he would be replaced by the far more moderate Nesta."
"Yes, but you talk about us taking him out. Assassination of a foreign leader is contrary to international law."
The general sighed. "But Mr. President, you must see how simple your choice is. One bullet, followed by a few more as security services clean up afterwards, will be enough to avert a widespread massacre and probable war. I know you don't want the blood of a foreign leader on your hands, but would you prefer to be drowning in the blood of thousands of his, and your own, people?"
---------------------------------------------------
Pretty much every assertion made by the general could potentially be wrong, and if any of them are, then his "simple" utilitarian calculation would be wrong and the resulting mess would be (or should I say actually was) catastrophic. It seems we have to be taught this lesson at least once every generation—the lesson that simple answers to complex situations are always wrong. When will we finally learn it?
---------------------------------------------------
The president lowered his voice and said, "What you are suggesting is illegal."
"Yes indeed, Mr. President," replied the general. "But you have to ask yourself how best to protect the lives of your citizens. The situation is simple: Tatum is determined both to mount a campaign of ethnic cleansing in his own country and to launch military attacks on us. Our intelligence tells us that he is almost alone in this view and that if we were to take him out, he would be replaced by the far more moderate Nesta."
"Yes, but you talk about us taking him out. Assassination of a foreign leader is contrary to international law."
The general sighed. "But Mr. President, you must see how simple your choice is. One bullet, followed by a few more as security services clean up afterwards, will be enough to avert a widespread massacre and probable war. I know you don't want the blood of a foreign leader on your hands, but would you prefer to be drowning in the blood of thousands of his, and your own, people?"
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 190.
---------------------------------------------------
So yes, there are times when morality can supersede the law, as is the case when society is not acting toward the long-term survival of all life (my objective definition of moral good). But that really doesn't seem to be the case here. It's more of a case of utilitarian math gone wrong. The general thinks he's only taking one little life (plus or minus a little "cleanup" afterwards) for the benefit of...who knows...thousands?...millions?...of good ol' Americans in the U.S. of A. I've already said plenty lately about how knowledge is probabilistic because you can't know the future so you should tread cautiously where consequences of error are large, so let's just look at the experiment again and point out all the possibilities for prediction error (highlighted in bold red).
---------------------------------------------------
The president lowered his voice and said, "What you are suggesting is illegal."
"Yes indeed, Mr. President," replied the general. "But you have to ask yourself how best to protect the lives of your citizens. The situation is simple: Tatum is determined both to mount a campaign of ethnic cleansing in his own country and to launch military attacks on us. Our intelligence tells us that he is almost alone in this view and that if we were to take him out, he would be replaced by the far more moderate Nesta."
"Yes, but you talk about us taking him out. Assassination of a foreign leader is contrary to international law."
The general sighed. "But Mr. President, you must see how simple your choice is. One bullet, followed by a few more as security services clean up afterwards, will be enough to avert a widespread massacre and probable war. I know you don't want the blood of a foreign leader on your hands, but would you prefer to be drowning in the blood of thousands of his, and your own, people?"
---------------------------------------------------
Pretty much every assertion made by the general could potentially be wrong, and if any of them are, then his "simple" utilitarian calculation would be wrong and the resulting mess would be (or should I say actually was) catastrophic. It seems we have to be taught this lesson at least once every generation—the lesson that simple answers to complex situations are always wrong. When will we finally learn it?
