onegoodmove

We were excited to see a philosopher contributing to public discourse when we came across Keith Burgess-Jackson' Bush's Critics Meet the Logic Police despite its title. He starts his article by suggesting that philosophers can contribute much to the public discourse on a variety of political issues. We wholeheartedly agree with him on this. We were hoping that his article would point out fallacies progressives make so that we could avoid them in the future. We were severely disappointed by his article. The level of scholarship is just not there and his work gives philosophers a bad name.

If some philosophers are logic police, then others are officers from internal affairs. Burgess Jackson writes. "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." Though Bush's motivations may not be relevant in establishing the logical possibility of providing a moral justification for war, they are relevant in judging whether Bush himself was moral in instigating that war. We don't know about Mr. Burgess-Jackson, but it matters to us whether or not our president acts morally. Burgess-Jackson argues, "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." One might argue quite the opposite. A person could act immorally and despite this the outcome may be good. Conversely, a person could act morally and the outcome could nevertheless be bad. If motives were irrelevant in evaluating the morality of somebody's actions, then we couldn't distinguish between a crime of passion and a cold calculated murder. Just as there are common expressions that capture Burgess-Jackson's viewpoint, there are common expressions that capture the view outlined above. "The ends don't justify the means" comes to mind.

The moral viewpoints presented above come from an age-old philosophical debate about ethics. Burgess-Jackson argues for a view known as consequentialism. According to consequentialist theory, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argued for such a view. The alternative I presented is based on deontological (duty) theories of morality. Deontological theories base morality on specific moral principles that are not to be violated regardless of the outcome. The Ten Commandments are a good example. John Locke's rights theory and Emmanuel Kant's categorical imperative provide further examples of deontological theories. The point we want to make is that it is terribly presumptuous to assume that consequentialism is true and subsequently charge progressive pundits with committing logical fallacies based on this. If deontological theory is true then the progressive's conclusions are not fallacious because motives are everything in such theories. We would expect a freshman undergraduate to make such a philosophical move, but it is unacceptable from philosopher with a PhD.

Burgess-Jackson follows this questionable premise by asking why the public debate focused so sharply on the President's alleged motives, to wit oil, revenge, and the economy. He suggests the answer is hatred of the president and confusion.

There was no confusion. The focus wasn't on motives. It was on the legal justification for the war. Only after Bush's legal justifications were deemed inadequate, did progressive pundits begin to question his motives. The progressives concern was not with the removal of Saddam, which was acknowledged by all as good, but rather the aftermath of war. Those who opposed the war questioned the primary justification George Bush offered, that there was an imminent threat to the United States, and that the threat came from weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists. Bush said Iraq had or was close to getting nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The administration argued further that Saddam would use those weapons or pass them on to others to use and that there was no time for alternatives to military action. He didn't make the case. He failed to convince the world community, he failed to convince the United Nations Security Council, and he failed to convince many Americans.

Another reason many opposed the war was that they had misgivings about the chances of long term success in imposing a government on Iraq. George Bush senior made the same argument against occupation after the first gulf war, and repeated it prior to this war. It is still unclear if he was right or not, but the problems so far seem to support his view. Burgess-Jackson is correct that many questioned the president’s motives. These questions were not meant as arguments against the war. They were offered as an explanation of Bush's advocacy of war despite the lack of legal justification and expected problems long term occupation would bring.

Finally, the question of Bush's motives are important in their own right quite apart from whether war was justified. The United States is a constitutional Republic. We are a nation of laws. Questions of motivation and honesty go to the core of what we value in America. They are the reason that Richard Nixon, facing impeachment, left office. The Watergate burglary itself was not earth shattering, but a president that would lie about it shook the foundations of our republic. It is important for a president to be honest, and it is important for the president’s motivations for taking action in our name to reflect our values. If those motives are hidden, if those motives are disguised, if those motives are based on lies and exaggeration they undermine our democracy. The threat this poses to our republic is far greater than danger from terrorist attacks. To claim the focus of criticism was Bush's motives fails to present the best argument that those who opposed the war made. Need we remind Burgess-Jackson. "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." Burgess-Jackson's article is not philosophy, it is partisan pop culture. The best way he can help make philosophy more relevant to the wider public is to stop writing.

update: John Hudock likes the logic cop though he doesn't say why. Perhaps he just likes all cops.

More on Burgess-Jackson at Lies.Com