I thought this was interesting: Bush's Critics Meet the Logic Police By Keith Burgess-Jackson In academic circles, there has been talk recently and much hand-wringing about what (if anything) philosophers can contribute to public discourse, particularly as it relates to the debate over the war in Iraq. Some people (including, unsurprisingly, many philosophers) believe that philosophers, as such, have normative or evaluative expertise. This puzzles me. Where did we get such expertise? Was there a course in graduate school in which we were to absorb "correct" values? If so, I and quite a few others missed it. Perhaps I should demand a refund of my tuition. Nor have philosophers been authorized by others to speak in their behalf, in the way that religious leaders have. Authority is conferred, not assumed. That I, a philosopher, value this or that gives nobody else a reason to value it. Oh sure, I may argue for an evaluative claim, but any such argument must have at least one evaluative premise, and then the question arises at a different point. That I, a philosopher, assert such-and-such goes no way toward showing that it is true (unless, of course, it's a necessary truth, for that's a matter of understanding the relevant concepts). The vaunted "wisdom" of philosophy consists in knowing what one doesn't know, not in having privileged access to the true, the beautiful, or the good. The expertise of philosophers, hence their authority, is technical, not normative. We are trained to analyze concepts, expose fallacies (understood as errors in reasoning), and clarify arguments and methods. One important element of clarification is identification (articulation, exposition) of assumptions. Another is attention to meaning. The philosopher is adept at distinguishing conceptual, evaluative, and factual claims. In public discourse, these are often entangled, resulting in confusion and fallacy. No other discipline, not even law, self-consciously inculcates analytical, critical, argumentative, and methodological skills in its graduates. Without these skills, intelligent discourse would deteriorate and ultimately cease. Forgive the metaphor, but philosophers are logical police. Their nightstick is nothing more, or less, than the principle of noncontradiction. Let me illustrate how these distinctively philosophical skills might be used to advance public debate. I have heard it said repeatedly, in the pages of the New York Times, the Guardian and elsewhere, that the Bush administration "lied to" or "misled" the public about its motive(s) for going to war in Iraq. (Not "against" Iraq, but "in" Iraq. It was a war against Saddam Hussein's regime, not against the Iraqi people.) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true - that the Bush administration told a big whopping lie about its motive(s). Does this show that the war was unjustified? Not at all. First, motives are not reasons. A badly motivated person can do the right thing (by accident, as it were), just as a well-motivated person can do the wrong thing. That this is so is reflected in a number of common sayings, such as "It's the thought that counts," "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." The first two suggest that the act is wrong but well-meaning, the third that the act is right in spite of its poor or improper motivation. Second, there can be more than one motive for a given action. The classic example of multiple motivation is a merchant giving correct change to a customer. This can be done both to do the right thing (by the merchant's standards) and to get the customer to come back (a case of self-interest). Morality and self-interest do not always diverge! Suppose, then, that President Bush had a disreputable motive (fill in your own; make it the very worst) in going to war. Does this show that he had no reputable (respectable, defensible) motive? No. That would be fallacious. Third, suppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. One thing - maybe the most important thing - young philosophers learn is charity. Before criticizing an argument, make it the best it can be. This is the fundamental fairness of the philosophical method. It is what turned many of us away from law, where fallacy, sadly, is rewarded. The philosopher cares deeply about process (the relation between premises and conclusion) and only incidentally, if at all, about the result. Too often in the debate about war in Iraq I have seen not just failure to put the best face on an argument but a seeming insistence on putting the worst face on it. This principle of charity in interpretation is nothing more than an application of the Golden Rule, to wit: If you would not like your own argument reconstructed badly - the easier for the critic to dispose of it - do not do so to the arguments of others. Be fair. Be charitable. Be honest. Do not contribute to the degradation of public discourse. As far as the justification of war in Iraq is concerned, President Bush's motives are irrelevant. Why, then, has the public debate focused so sharply, to the point of harping, on his motives? Why the constant refrain to the effect that the war is "about oil" or a way to "finish what his father started" or an attempt to "distract attention from the economy"? I have racked my brain for an answer to this question. I believe it is one part hatred of the president and all that he stands for, and one part confusion. The philosopher, qua philosopher, can deal with the latter. Perhaps a psychotherapist will have to be called in to deal with the former. Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Humanities, The University of Texas at Arlington. http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-060503B
Insofar as he speaks of the role of philosophy, he's correct. The article, unfortunately, seems written with a bit too much of an agenda. Sadly, politics almost never conforms to philosophical standards of debate (or most any consistent standard, come to think of it). Why was the critique so one-sided? Certainly, the other side is just as guilty in its attacks upon "non-patriots" and the French. Regardless, he's incorrect as he applies his argument to the situation at hand. Bush's motives are relevant, not with regard to the justification of the war, but to his fitness to lead. If the war was justified, but Bush engaged in the war primarily for improper reasons, then his ability to make correct decisions in future situations should be perhaps be doubted. I noticed this writer argued that one should allow for the "best argument" of the other side. This is utterly true. It is, unfortunately, lamentable that he gave in to temptation and set up a poor straw man himself.
I love it. Bush may have lied about the reasons for the war. For instance maybe he wanted to make money for his father in the Carlyle group and increase his own inheritance. However let's don't confuse lying or evil motives with a lack of justification (objective) for the war against Sadam that killed 1000's of Iraqis and it appears soon to be 100's of Americans. As Wofowicz confessed they pushed the wmd as it was most convincing to the largest numer of people. Why not just say we lied for your own good, you stupid people, but it doesn't mean that the war was not worthwhile in the end. (The ends justify the means). This is good enough for Treeman or the conservative philosopher, but I doubt it is for the American Public.
Are you saying it's better to sit on your hands and do nothing? Just kick the rhetoric around for a few years and hope that Saddam leaves on his own free will? In this case, the ends does justify the means, IMO. When this whole thing started, I didn't care what the reason the public was given for going in. I believed it was the right thing to do. Is lying to the public the right thing? NO. Absolutely not. I would've bought the 12 UN violations, the human rights issues, anything. Here's a scenario for you: N. Korea or Iran beligerantly starts boasting that they'll sell nukes to anyone unless the U.S. pays them. (I believe N. Korea is already hinting at it). What do you do? I'm asking this because you seem to toe a hard LEFT line, Glynch. You may not, but that's what I get from your posts. I apologize if I've mistakenly interpret your intent. Seriously, what to do? I think I have a good idea of what the hard Right side would do. Probably pre-emptively strike in the case of Iran. We can already see how N. Korea is being handled. What about the hard Left? Strike or pay them?
there are soooo many different philosophical beliefs out there that that article means nothing. one could take a Kantian approach and refute a lot of what was said - philosophically speaking.
This is the "two birds with one stone" theory. That happens all the time in politics. Use a real, albiet weak justifcation (WMD, axis of evil, protect the USA) but a the same time satisfy ones own motivation (protect Daddy's honor, bring in oil money..etc...)
"May" have lied? "May"??? This is the first time I've seen someone from the hardcore, Bush-hatin' left even consider the possibility that he did not lie. And from the king of the BBS left, no less! Of course, if he did not lie, then his motives were not impure... But we'll save that for another day. Damn, we're making progress here... I am satisfied.
How can one be certain he lied? One can be nearly completely certain he exagerated. But that's, alas, to be expected from any President (or almost any person) who's trying to get what he wants. I find it hard to believe that he would have flat out lied. The real question, I think, is how bad he knowingly exxagerated the situation to further another objective. And whether such exageration was so great as to be substantially equivalent to a lie.
Well, if we remember that pretty much everyone on the planet, including intelligence services of nations who opposed us, fully believed that Saddam had anthrax oozing out of his ass, then I would say that he did not "knowingly exxagerate the situation to further another objective". If he truly believed that the WMD were there - and I truly believe that he did - then he did not exaggerate. The only thing that I see him guilty of is playing up only a single justification while not giving other, more important justifications enough playtime. They were all mentioned, but the admin probably gave 90% of their lip service to the WMD issue, while just touching on the other justifications. But still, that does not matter to me. That does nothing to lessen those justifications that were not harped on about - they are/were still valid. In the end, we did the right thing, and that's all that matters. To me, at least. All else is academic.
Easy: I gave the only critique, that I've seen, of the merits of the argument itself? As far as I can see, they've never been countered. Treeman: I'm interested in knowing what exactly Bush was informed of. To be honest, I'm shocked that nothing had been found. I expected them to find evidence of a budding nuclear program, anthrax, chemies, etc. But, then, I'm not really in a position to know facts about intellignece. Most of what I know is straight from press statements. If all that Bush was informed of was that he *may* have certain weapons... then Bush indeed exaggerated a great deal. This just isn't answerable right now...
haven, My remark was meant to be a somewhat sarcastic statement about the irony of this philosopher's article. It wasn't specifically directed at you. I have a lot of sympathy with his general point about the role of philosophy because it's also what I do. It is also obvious what his political stance is from his "illustrations." I agree with you that the problem of Bush's motives is not in the justification of the war but in his leadership credibility. But the article's point is still valid and you have not contradicted him. He is not arguing the irrelevance of Bush's motives per se. He is arguing the irrelevance of Bush's motives IN RELATION TO THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE WAR. He is talking about a past event, not about future decisions. The funny thing is, when Clinton was shown to have lied about having sex with an intern, his approval rate was still very high. People said, "What does it matter if he's not an honest man, as long as he's making good decisions as a president." I don't know if you were among those people. I suspect that many of the people who said Clinton's character didn't bother them are the same people who are questioning Bush's integrity.
Philosophically, the point is a lobster trap: End justifiying means is not a circumstancial maxim. It either can or it can't ...There is no " In this case the end justifies the means." because as soon as you say it CAN, you open the floodgates of subjective pre-determination. What that means is that people have argued for centuries whether you can justify an immoral/wrong/detrimental etc. means...ie method of doing something...by virtue of the moral/right/beneficial end...ie result of the methods. It either can or can't...either one excuses the other, or it doesn't. Many people believe that the end is immaterial if the means to get there is corrupt; fruit of the poisoned tree... So to say that you believe this end is good, therefore the means are excused is an irrelevent statement...You have to address things comprehensively. No one says that ends always justify means...as no one agrees with all the ends in the world. If you are asking if a guy gets away with stealing 500 bucks, but had to kill 10 people, does the end justify the means, no one is going to support you. Don't distinguish on the basis of whether you like the end or not; that is assumed for the question to be asked. There is no point discussiong with someone if the end justifies the means if they don't particularly like the end to begin with...common sense, no? The debate is only raised when you have people who agree with an end which was accomplished by virtue of questionable means...and if you commit to supporting that whay of thinking, you unleash dangers I'm not sure you've considered. Think about this...we have a system in place wherein the administration is accountable to the desires of the people...not because the people are more qualified to make the decisions, but because that is the only measure we have of limiting the power of the administration, and curbing individual agendas becoming synonomous with American ones. I doubt anyone thinks that an average sampling of the American populace is better qualified to make the Big Decisions...that is the sacrifice of expediency the American system has made on the alter of Freedom. There is no doubt that monarchies, dictatorships, tyranies and autocracies are more expediant than democracies...they always have been. They are designed to be responsive to one or a few wills, and move much, much faster than our slow lumbering, deliberate system. That is their advantage, and we have always known it...name one war we got into very quickly. If you want to start a war quickly, and preserve yourself from external dangers above all else, quickly select a dictator and be done with it. Dictators and monarchs are also better at preserving the peace, and 'making things work'...it's a simple fact. Crime in the USSR has shot up since they have gained their freedom...the trains in Italy have never run on time since Mussolini left power...Germany has never been as powerful and fast acting , as able to swiftly deal with her enemies and dangers, inside or out, since Hitler's fall... But we have agreed to make that sacrifice because it is consistent with our priorities...the trains may not run on time, we may not make the 1st move in the war...but we will maintain the essence of our system; responsible government. If, in the face of fear...to make us more responsive...we abandon those priorities for the sake of expediency...if we allow the agenda of the few to overrun the freedom of the many because we agree with their results... If you allow that the end justifies the means, that is what you are embracing. Because you are saying to Bush, and future leaders, that the American people no longer value their freedom above all else...that when faced with fear and political diatribe, this generation folded like a cheap suit, and sacrificed the values that previous generations faced counteless fears, and fought many wars to preserve...we are saying that we surrender the process of responsible governement...we allow the administration to knowingly mislead us, because we give up to them not the assumption that they know better, but the ability to circumvent the process to act on that assumption. It's not like previous generations didn't face this dilema...FDR desperately wanted to get the US into WWII, but was contrained by having to respond to an apathetic populace...for our own safety, and facing a menace much greater than Hussein. George Washington could have made the initial steps of the US much more overtly secure by accepting the Crown. If we had accepted ends justifying means,we would have turned a blind eye to bombing Laos and Cambodia...Unless you think Communism was not a threat, Senator Joe McCarthy's means could easily have been justified in today's climate of fear motivated carte blanche...etc. But they knew what the sacrifice would be, the very essence of what makes America what it is...and that has never been the fastest acting...the safest...the most efficient. It has been about trying to stand for being free...struggling to maintain an awkward, clumsy, and slow moving system in the face of less responsible but initially faster moving political machines. The power we possesed within our system was, as Sam Houston described, that once the machine got rolling in a certain direction, it was like an unstoppable steam engine, driven by the power of the entire populace. We are the tortaoise vs. the hare...but more like the Rhino vs. the hare...slow to decision, slow to get going, deliberate in our actions, but inexorable once under way, beacue unl;ike dictators and monarchs we have to be sure of every step before we take it, as our leaders are held accountable to the will of the people...or at least we were. In order to ensure our 'safety' Bush has gotten us to sacrifice civil liberties. In oreder to eliminate imminent threats of nuclear and later biological holocaust, Bush has gotten us to abandon 50 years of global will based diplomacy, among other things. Now Bush is getting us to abandon the principles of end not justifying means...of holding our leaders accountable for not misleading us, but letting us, slow moving as we are, make the decisions in the light of day, just so that we can piss all over Iraq, thereby showing the Middle East that a newer, bigger dog is on the block. And we are willing to look the other way... Remember...by approving Bush's circumventing the process, the people, and the policies of the United States of America in order to do what he feels is best, you are approving everyone in the future doing the same. You are rubber stamping a new way of doing things...well, not so much new to Germans or italians, but new to Americans...:Sound the alarm of fear, wave the flag of patriotism, repeatedly point the finger at the chosen enemy, call them evil, make up or 'overemphasize' their sins, rave about the danger they represent to America, and the people will forgive all if you win. The only important point is to remember to choose an enemy you are sure you can beat...not like the damned Viet Cong, and for God's sakes stay away from nuclear powers, whatever their politics. If you give our leaders the free ticket of boxing the American people out of the process, by deceit or fear or both under the banner of the end justifies the means, you might just as well admit defeat and call it a day. It's not a selective process, justifying ends by means, and those who we will raise in that system may make the trains run on time...but they won't run through a free country.
Uh, MacBeth, your "article" is good. But doesn't it belong to another thread? (I think it's the "Watergate" thread where you argued with DD about "the end justifies the means" argument.) I don't think the philosopher in this thread is trying to argue "the end justifies the means." He is arguing, as I understand it, "the motive is irrelevant in the justification of an act." He's not talking about Bush's means (making war) in getting an end (disposing Saddam). He's talking about Bush's motives (whatever those are) in doing an act (making war). No?
haven: The truth is that none of us know what the intelligence said, but I think that it was probably pretty adamant that the programs and weapons existed. It was after all based upon 12 years of experience in dealing with the Iraqis, witness testimony, satintel, informers... It was probably quite a bit more thorough than the press is giving it credit for. Intelligence built up over long periods such as this usually is. Also keep in mind that there are echoes of the programs all over the place. Abandoned chem facilities, traces of precursors found, the trailers, the chem suits and the atropine... Even the nuclear facility raises questions (like, what did Iraq need nuclear power for anyway, since it would have been an inefficient and expensive form of power for a nation that had all the energy it could ever need cheaply sitting right under ground - that and the fact that the Tuwaitha facility was connected to the Osirak reactor)... The intel was probably not completely inaccurate. But still, you are right - we just do not know for sure either way at this point. But if Bush was told something along the lines of "well, we think he probably has it", then he did exaggerate. But if, as I suspect, he was told "Sir, we're about 99.9% certain that they're there", and if it turns out that the intelligence was inaccurate, then the blame should be laid at the feet of the intelligence agencies who told him that. The whole thing about this silly argument is that for it to be true - the "Bush lied" theory, that is - the intelligence agencies had to have told him that they were not confident or did not believe that the WMD and their associated programs were there. How likely do you think that is?
