The Ethics of the American Invasion of Iraq

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 is certainly one of the more controversial unknown policy initiatives of the 21st century. The general facts surrounding this event atomic number 18 work on the 20th day of May 2003, the coupled States, with support from swell Britain and a host of opposite western nations, invaded Iraq in response to intelligence agency reports of weapons of mass destruction. Up until May 1, 2003, these forces fought to successfully topple the regime of ibn Talal ibn Talal Hussein Hussein and to usher in a new era for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi nation.However, these facts were not the main source of tension that this forces imperative created instead, the honourable implications behind the invasion and the debates concerning the terra firmas for entering the war atomic number 18 what have sparked protest, of which most notably has been the record-breaking anti-war rally in capital of Italy one month before the invasion. Unfortunately the debate i s too frequently discussed in terms of consequences alone.On one stance the pro-war supporters have cited the need to defend America from further advances, to stave off nuclear holocaust and to wrap up a maniacal dictator from power, while on the another(prenominal) side anti-war protesters have argued that the invasion costs far too m some(prenominal) spare American as well as Iraqi lives. Of course, in our ethical discourse we cannot ignore consequences, besides along with consequences we moldiness also consume principles. Therefore, in this essay, I will look at the ethics of the American invasion of Iraq through the lens of Kantian ethics.I will begin with a discussion of Kants theory and move from this to argue against the invasion ground on Kants setoff adage of the categorical imperative. Kants ethical theory is deontological in that it does not focus primarily on consequences, but first and foremost on principles. These principles he forms from practical homoph ile reason and the good principle that he names the categorical imperative. In its twain forms this imperative offers a universal ethic that all rational human beings in all ages and from all cultural backgrounds should be able to recognize.The first proverb deals with the universalizing of human behaviour Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law (Kant, 1785 1948, p. 421). The purpose of this maxim is simple in that it forces the moral agent to take his or her actions as implying a universal code. For example, if a moral agent is supposeing telling a lie because it will nurture beneficial to him or her in that situation, he or she must consider that if all other moral agents told lies in the same situations then any society based on a basic level of trust and truth would inevitably collapse.One persons ethic universalized would destroy an complete social structure. In other words, Kant challenges the ethical person not to yield an exce ption of him or herself. The second maxim deals with the commission in which other human beings are to relate to other human beings. Kant states, treat bountynever simply as a means, but al modes at the same time as an ends (Kant, 1785 1948, p. 429). People should always be toughened as the final goal of our moral actions and not merely the way in which we realize other personal agendas.Although both of these maxims may loan important ethical insights to a discussion on the invasion in Iraq, the first maxim offers a far more concrete pretending in which to discuss the invasion and therefore we apply it alone. There are many criticisms against the invasion into Iraq, but I will focus on three specific criticisms insufficient evidence for the invasion, going beyond the United Nations, and the use of armed services force over diplomacy. Firstly, as admitted by the C. I. A in 2005 and verified by the invasion itself, the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was a weakor even mendaciousreason for going to war.It seems, therefore, that the U. S. was simply taking far too forceful steps without proper research. If we were to universalize this practice, the world would be faced with a terrible increase in violence and war. Not only would enemies attack one another on good suspicions, but even consort would be lead to attack one another based on the weak suspicion that each country may have enceinte intentions toward the other. This type of global policy is not acceptable for a one nation, and this is made perfectly clear in the fact that it cannot be responsibly universalized.Secondly, the U. S. went above the recommendations of the U. N. and acted out of line with the U. N. s policy. In this respect, according to the explanation of Kofi Annan and the U. N. Security Council, the invasion of Iraq was technically illegal. If we again apply Kants universalizing maxim to the U. S. s behavior we have another strong criticism of the invasion. The U. N. was expressly created by the consent of most of the countries of the world as a autonomous power that would be allowed to resolved global conflict between nations.As doubting Thomas Hobbes points out in his Leviathan, any individual or group that submits to a sovereign has the responsibility to accept the judgments of that power. The U. S. , in its flagrant disregard of the U. N. s policy, clearly did not respect the power of the sovereign and in this way set a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action. If the full(a) world were to universalize this ethic there would remain no liberty in the world and all nations would return to the brutal Hobbesian state of nature. Lastly, the U. S.s decision to invade made a clear statement that military action is preferable to the diplomatic resource. For any civilized society, war must always be the last option, if it is to be used at all. umteen supporters of the invasion may claim that the Bush administration had no ot her option, but it is clear that the administration did not do nearly as much diplomacy as it could have. Other nations should have been included in the process and negotiations should have been more controlled within the influence of the U. N. If we universalize the U. S.s action to go to war before pushing for diplomacy, the diplomatic option in the world would collapse. In this sense, there would be little want of peaceful solutions to inter-national conflicts, but instead a future of pre-empted strikes and quick invasions. If this would hence become the case, the world would need far more than Kantian ethics to save it from its inevitable decline. References Hobbes, Thomas (2006). Leviathan. New York Dover Publications, Incorporated. Kant, Immanuel (1948). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans. ). capital of the United Kingdom Hutchinson.(Original work published 1785, and published in a collection in 1903 page references to this edition). Kant, Immanuel (1836). The Metaphysics of Ethics. (John William Semple, Trans. ). Edinburgh Thomas Clark. (Original work published 1785). Paton, Herbert James. (1971). The Categorical Imperative A Study in Kants Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press. Ross, Dennis. (2008). Statecraft And How to renovate Americas Standing in the World. New York Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Steel, Jonathan. (2008). Defeat wherefore America and Britain Lost Iraq. Berkeley Counterpoint.