The Ethics of the American Invasion of Iraq

The Ameri potty invasion of Iraq in 2003 is sure enough i of the much controversial extraneous policy initiatives of the 21st century. The general facts environ this event are pass off on the 20th day of whitethorn 2003, the coupled States, with support from Great Britain and a entertain of some different western nations, invaded Iraq in result to intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction. Up until May 1, 2003, these forces fought to successfully topple the regime of ibn Talal Hussein Hussein and to usher in a new era for the Iraqi flock and the Iraqi nation.However, these facts were not the main root system of tension that this legions imperative created instead, the honorable implications behind the invasion and the debates concerning the reasons for entering the contend are what cast off sparked protest, of which nigh notably has been the record-breaking anti-war r in ally in capital of Italy one month before the invasion. unluckily the debate is too often addressed in terms of consequences alone.On one font the pro-war supporters have cited the need to protect America from push attacks, to stave off nuclear last solution and to remove a maniacal dictator from power, while on the other side anti-war protesters have advocated that the invasion costs off the beaten track(predicate) too m whatsoever innocent American as well as Iraqi lives. Of course, in our ethical discourse we cannot geld consequences, simply along with consequences we must alike consider principles. on that pointfore, in this essay, I provide look at the ethics of the American invasion of Iraq through the lens of Kantian ethics.I go forth begin with a watchword of Kants theory and move from this to argue against the invasion based on Kants beginning maxim of the prostrate imperative. Kants ethical theory is deontological in that it does not focus primarily on consequences, provided graduation and foremost on principles. These principles he forms from practical human reason and the incorrupt principle that he names the categorical imperative. In its two forms this imperative offers a universal ethic that all shrewd human beings in all ages and from all cultural backgrounds should be able to recognize.The first maxim deals with the universalizing of human behaviour map yet on that maxim which you can at the alike(p) time will to be a universal integrity (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 considering telling a lie beca recitation it will prove skillful 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(prenominal) any society based on a basic level of charge and truth would inevitably collapse.One souls ethic universalized would destroy an entire tender structure. In other words, Kant challen ges the ethical person not to make an exception of him or herself. The second maxim deals with the right smart in which other human beings are to refer to other human beings. Kant claims, treat gentlemans gentlemannever simply as a means, but perpetually at the same time as an ends (Kant, 1785 1948, p. 429). People should constantly be treated as the final goal of our moral actions and not just now the way in which we realize other personal agendas.Although both of these maxims may bestow important ethical insights to a discourse on the invasion in Iraq, the first maxim offers a far more concrete model in which to discuss the invasion and therefore we sacrifice it alone. There are many review articles against the invasion into Iraq, but I will focus on three specific criticisms insufficient record for the invasion, going beyond the United Nations, and the use of military force over diplomacy. Firstly, as admitted by the C. I. A in 2005 and corroborate by the invasion it self, the claim that ibn Talal Hussein Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was a liteor even fanciedreason for going to war.It seems, therefore, that the U. S. was simply fetching far too drastic step with come out of the closet proper research. If we were to universalize this practice, the domain would be faced with a terrible increment in violence and war. Not only would enemies attack one another on good suspicions, but even associate would be lead to attack one another based on the weak suspicion that each country may have bad intentions toward the other. This type of spheric policy is not acceptable for a single nation, and this is do 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 value, according to the definition of Kofi Annan and the U. N. credential Council, the invasion of Iraq was technically illegal. If we again ap ply Kants universalizing maxim to the U. S. s fashion we have another strong criticism of the invasion. The U. N. was expressly created by the consent of most of the countries of the creative activity as a independent power that would be allowed to resolved orbicular conflict between nations.As Thomas Hobbes points out in his Leviathan, any individual or group that submits to a sovereign has the office to accept the judgments of that power. The U. S. , in its flagrant dilute of the U. N. s policy, clearly did not respect the power of the sovereign and in this way set a dangerous preceding(prenominal) for unilateral military action. If the entire world were to universalize this ethic there would stay no authority 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 option. For any civilized society, war must always be the last option , if it is to be employ at all. Many supporters of the invasion may claim that the Bush institution had no other option, but it is clear that the administration did not do nearly as much diplomacy as it could have. otherwise nations should have been included in the operate and negotiations should have been more controlled within the make up ones mind 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 hope of peaceful solutions to inter-national conflicts, but instead a future of pre-empted strikes and quick invasions. If this would indeed turn the case, the world would need far more than Kantian ethics to save it from its required decline. References Hobbes, Thomas (2006). Leviathan. New York Dover Publications, Incorporated. Kant, Immanuel (1948). stern of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans. ). London Hutchinson.(Original work publi sh 1785, and produce 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 pack in Kants Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia University of dada Press. Ross, Dennis. (2008). Statecraft And How to Restore Americas Standing in the World. New York Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Steel, Jonathan. (2008). pommel Why America and Britain Lost Iraq. Berkeley Counterpoint.