Question: Can it be ethical NOT to go to war?

Whether you are worried, angry or confused, there are thousands of questions surrounding the Iraq crisis. The Iraq Questions Panel is trying to give you some answers.

QUESTION

From Gareth Fincham, Leicester
Is there any ethical justification for NOT going to war, and therefore abandoning the Iraqi people to their fate?

ANSWER
From Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosopher's Magazine
The question puts its finger on a particularly thorny issue in ethics, namely the so-called 'acts/omissions' distinction.

The issue is whether we are as morally responsible for the consequences of not acting, when our inaction is deliberate and the consequences reasonably clear, as we are for the consequences of acting. So, for example, if I see someone sitting in the road and a truck is coming towards them, and I do not call to them to get out of the way, even though I easily could, am I any better than the person who falsely tells such a person is it is safe to go and sit in the road?

That's the general problem. So how does it apply here? Dr Fincham is right, I think, to draw attention to the terrible situation of the Iraqi people. Anti-war campaigners tend to focus only on the obviously terrible effects of a war. But we should not ignore the terrible effects of leaving Iraq as it is.

There is more to morality than the weighing up of consequences

It is argued by many that Iraq is in the state it is in only as a consequence of the 1991 war and the subsequent sanctions. First, I cannot agree that if only the US and its allies had kept uninvolved life would be good for the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator before sanctions. Second, it is hard to see how the situation in the Middle East would be better today if the invasion of Kuwait had not been repelled.

Nevertheless, although we do need to factor in the situation of the Iraqi people, that does not necessarily swing the argument to war. One consequences of not going to war is the certain continuation of the sorry state of Iraq, until Hussein is toppled or dies. But the regime is weak and with inspectors all over the country it probably does not pose a risk to international security. On the other hand, the consequences of war include the certain death of many soldiers and civilians - horrible, often slow deaths - and the risk of destabilising the region and fuelling the kind of terrorism George Bush and Tony Blair claim to be fighting.

I should add that there is more to morality than the weighing up of consequences. But in international politics, the prime consideration leaders have to make is which course of action makes most people better off and harms the fewest. And it is not as obvious as many claim that the answer in this case is not to go to war.

---

If you've got a question for the Iraq Panel about the crisis, submit it by clicking here.